SCHISM GARDED, and beaten back upon the right owners.  
Showing that our great controversy about Papal power is not a quaestion of faith, but of interest and profit, not with the Church of Rome, but with the Court of Rome, wherein the true Controversy doth consist, who were the first innovators, when and where these Papal innovations first began in England, with the opposition that was made against them.  
By JOHN BRAMHALL D. D. Bishop of Derry.  Act. 25. 10. I stand at Caesar's judgment seat where I ought to be judged. Psalm. 19 2. Dies diei eructat verbum, & nox nocti indicat scientiam. 
GRAVENHAGH, Imprinted by JOHN RAMZEY, Anno M.DC.LVIII.   

To the CHRISTIAN READERS, especially the roman-catholics of England.  
CHristian Reader, the great Bustling in the Controversy concerning Papal power or the discipline of the Church, hath been either about the true sense of some Texts of holy Scripture, As thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church, and to thee will I give the Keys of the Kingdom of heaven, and feed my sheep: Or about some privileges conferred upon the Roman See by the Canons of the Fathers and the Edicts of Emperors, but pretended by the Roman Court and the maintainers thereof to be held by divine right. I endeavour in this Treatise to disabuse thee, and to show that this challenge of divine right, is but a Blind or Diversion to withhold thee from finding out the true State of the Quaestion. So the Hare makes her doubles and her jumps before she come to her Form, to hinder Tracers from finding her out.  
I demonstrate to thee, that the true controversy is not concerning St. Peter, we have no form difference about St Peter, nor about any point of faith, but of interest and profit, nor with the Church of Rome, but with the Court of Rome, and wherein it doth consist, namely in these quaestions; Who shall confer English Bishoprickes, who shall convocate English Synods, who shall receive tenths and first fruits and Oaths of Allegiance and Fidelity, Whether the Pope can make binding Laws in England without the consent of the King and Kingdom, or dispense with English Laws at his own pleasure, or call English Subjects to Rome without the Prince's leave, or set up Legantine Courts in England against their wills. And this I show not out of the opinions of Particular Authors, but out of the public Laws of the Kingdom.  
I prove moreover out of our fundamental Laws and the writings of our best Historiographers, that all these branches of Papal power were abuses and innovations and usurpations, first attempted to be introduced into England above eleven hundred years after Christ, with the names of the Innovators, and the praecise time when each innovation began, and the opposition that was made against it, by our Kings, by our Bishops▪ by our Peers, by our Parliaments, with the groans of the Kingdom under these Papal innovations and extortions.  
Likewise in point of doctrine, thou hast been instructed that the Catholic faith doth comprehend all those points which are controverted between us and the Church of Rome, without the express belief whereof no Christian can be saved: whereas in truth all these are but opinions, yet some more dangerous than others. If none of them had ever been started in the world, there is sufficient to salvation for points to be believed in the Apostles Creed. Into this Apostolical faith professed in the Creed, and explicated by the four first General Counsels, and only into this faith, we have all been baptised. far be it from us to imagine, that the Catholic Church hath evermore baptised, and doth still baptise but into one half of the Christian faith.  
In sum dost thou desire to live in the Communion of the true Catholic Church? So do I. But as I dare not change the cognisance of my Christianity, that is my Creed, nor enlarge the Christian faith (I mean the essentials of it) beyond those bounds which the Apostles have set: So I dare not (to serve the interest of the Roman Court,) limit the Catholic Church, which Christ hath purchased with his blood, to a fourth or a fifth part of the Christian world.  
Thou art for tradition, So am I But my tradition is not the tradition of one particular Church contradicted by the tradition of another Church, but the universal and perpetual tradition of the Christian world united. Such a tradition is a full proof, which is received semper ubique & ab omnibus; always, every where, and by all Christians. Neither do I look upon the opposition of an handful of Heretics, (they are no more being compared to the innumerable multitudes of Christians,) in one or two ages, as inconsistent with universality, any more than the highest mountains are inconsistent with the roundness of the earth.  
Thou desirest to bear the same respect to the Church of Rome that thy Ancestors did; So do I. But for that fullness of power, yea coactive power in the exterior Court, over the subjects of other Princes, and against their wills, devised by the Court of Rome, not by the Church of Rome; it is that pernicious source from whence all these usurpations did spring. Our Ancestors from time to time made Laws against it: and our reformation in point of discipline being rightly understood, was but a pursueing of their steps. The true controversy is, whether the Bishop of Rome ought by divine right to have the external Regiment of the English Church, and coactive jurisdiction in English Courts, over English Subjects, against the will of the King and the Laws of the Kingdom.   

SCHISM GARDED and beaten back upon the right owners. Or A clear and CIVIL ANSWER, to the railing accusation of S. W. in his late Book called. SCHISM DISPAT'CHED.  
Whatsoever S. W. alias Mr. Serjeant doth intimate to the contrary, (for he dare not cough out,) it is a most undeniable truth, that no particular Church, (no not the Church of Rome itself) is exempted from a possibility of falling into errors in faith. When these errors are in Essentials of faith, which are necessary to salvation necessitate medii, they destroy the being of that Church which is guilty of them. But if these errors be in inferior points, such as are neither absolutely necessary to Salvation to be known, nor to be believed before they be known; such an Erroneous Church erring without obstinacy and holding the truth implicitly in praeparatione animi, may and doth still continue a true member of the Catholic Church, and other coordinate Churches may and aught to maintain Communion with it, not withstanding that they descent in opinion. But if one Church before a lawful determination shall obtrude her own Errors or Opinions upon all other Churches as a necessary condition of her communion, or after Determination shall obtrude doubtful opinions (whether they be Erroneous or not) as necessary Articles of Christian faith, and so not only explain, but likewise enlarge the Ancient Creeds, she becometh Schismatical: As on the otherside, that Church which shall not outwardly acquiesce after a legal Determination, and cease to disturb Christian Unity, though her judgement may be sound, yet her Practice is Schismatical.  
This is the very case betwixt the Churches of Rome and England, She obtrudeth Doubtful Opinions as Necessary Articles of faith, and her own Errors as necessary conditions of Communion, Which Mr. Sergeant everywhere misseth and misteth with his Praevarications. I cannot more fitly resemble his Discourse then to a Winter Torrent, Which aboundeth with Water when there is no need of it, but in Summer when it Should be useful, it is dried up: So he is full of proofs (which he miscalleth Demonstrations) where there is no controversy between us, and where the water sticks in deed; he is as mute as a fish. He taketh great pains te prove that the Catholic Church is infallible in such things as are necessary to Salvation. Whom doth he strike? He beateth but the air, We say the same: But we deny that his Church of Rome is this Catholic Church, and that the Differences between us are in such things as are necessary to Salvation. Here where he should Demonstrate if he could, he favours himself. He proveth that it is unreasonable to deny that or doubt of it which is received by the universal Tradition of the whole Christian World. What is he seeking? Surely he doth not seek the Question here in Earnest, but as he who sought for an Hare under the Leads; because he must seek her as well where she was not, as where she was. We confess that writing addeth no new Authority to Tradition, Divine Writings and Divine Tradition, Apostolical Writings and Apostolical traditions, if they be both alike certain, have the same authority: And what greater certainty can be imagined then the Universal Attestation of the Catholic Symbolical Church of Christ. But the right Controversy lieth on the other hand. We deny that the Tradition whereupon they ground their Opinions, wherein we and They descent, is universal, either in regard of time, or place.  
He endeavoureth with Tooth and Nail to establish the Roman Papacy jure divino, but for the extent of Papal power he leaveth it free to Princes, commonwealths, Churches, Universities, and particular Doctors to Dispute it and bound it, and to be Judges of their own Privileges. Yet the main controversy, I might say the only necessary controversy between them and us, is about the extent of Papal power, as shall be seen in due place. If the Pope would content himself with his exordium Vnitatis, which was all that his primitive praedecessors had, and is as much as a great part of his own Sons will allow him at this day; we are not so hard hearted and uncharitable, for such an innocent Title or Office, to disturb the peace of the Church. Nor do envy him such a pre-eminence among Patriarches as S. Pieter had (by the confession of his own party) among the Apostles. But this will not be accepted, either he will have all or none, patronages, tenths, first fruits, investitures, appeals, legantine courts, and in one word an absolute Sovereignty or nothing. It is nothing unless he may bind all other Bishops to maintain his usurped Royalties, under the pretenced name of Regalia Sancti Petri, by an Oath contradictory to our old Oath of allegiance, although all these encroachments are directly destructive to the ancient laws and liberties both of the British and English Churches. So we have only cast of his boundless Tiramny. It is he and his Court who have deserted and disclaimed his own just regulated authority, as appeareth by the right stating of the question. But M. Serjeant lapwing like makes the most pewing and crying when he is furthest from his nest. What he is, I neither know nor much regard. I conclude he is but a young divine, because he himself styleth his Treatise the Prentisage of his Endeavours in controversy. Pag: 2. And is it not a great boldness for a single apprentice (if he do not shoot other men's bolts after he hath bestowed a little Rhetorical Varnish upon them) to take up the Bucklers against two old Doctors at once, and with so much youthful presumption of victory that his Titles sound nothing but disarming and dispatching and knocking down, as if Caesar's Motto. I came, I see, I overcame, were his Birthright? He that is such a conqueror in his apprentisage, what victories may not he promise himself, when he is grown to be an experienced Master in his profession? But let him take heed that his over daring do not bring him in the conclusion to catch a Tartar, that is in plain English to lose himself. The cause which he oppugneth is built upon a rock, though the wind bluster and the waves beat, yet it cannot fall.  
I hear moreover by those who seem to know him, that he was sometimes a Novice of our English Church, who deserted his Mother before he knew her; If it be so to do, he oweth a double account for Schism, and one which he will not claw of so easily. And if no man had informed me, I should have suspected so much of myself: We find Strangers civil and courteons to us every where in our Exile, except they be set on by some of our own; but sundry of those who have run over from us, proved violent and bitter Adversaries without any provocation, (as Mr. Serjeant for example). I cannot include all in the same Gild. Whether it proceed from the Consciousness of their own guilt in deserting us, at this time especially; or the Contentment to gain Companions or fellow Proselytes: or they find it necessary to procure themselves to be trusted; or it be enjoined to them by their Superiors as a Policy to make the Breach irreparable; Or what else is the true reason I do not determine. But this we all know that Fowlers do not use to pursue those Birds with Clamour which they have a desire to catch.  
His manner of writing is petulant railing and full of Prevarication, as if he had the gift to turn all he touched into Absurdities Calumnies and Contradictions. Sometimes in a good mode, he acknowledgeth my poor labours to be a pattern of wit and industry; and that there is much commendable in them At other times in his passion he maketh them to be absurd, non sensicall, ridiculous and every where contradictory to themselves, and me to be Worse than a Madman or born fool. Good words. If better were within better would come out. Sometime he confesseth me to be candid and downright, and to speak plain; at other times he accuseth me for a falsifier and a Cheater without ingenuity. A sign that he uttereth whatsoever cometh upon his tongue's end, without regard to truth or falsehood. If he can blow both hot and cold with the same Breath, there is no great regard to be had of him.  
The Spartans' brought their Children to love Sobriety by showing them the detestable Enormities which their Servants committed being Drunken: so the only View of Mr. Sergeants railing writings are a sufficient Antidote to a stayed man against such extreme scurrility. And I wonder that the Church of Rome which is so provident that none of her Sons in their writings swerve from their rule of faith, should permit them so Licentionsly to transgress the rule of good manners: and whilst they seem to propugn true Piety, to abandon all Civility, as if Zeal and Humanity were in consistent. When Michael the Archangel disputed with the Devil about the body of Moses, he durst not bring a railing Accusation against him. Whether doth this man think himself to have more Privilege than an Archangel, or us to be worse than Devils? When the Holy Ghost fell upon the Apostles it was indeed in fiery Tongues to express Devotion: but likewise in cloven tongues to express Discretion. St. Paul would have the Servant of the Lord to be gentle to all men, in meekness instructing those that oppose themselves, if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth. This is the right way to gain souls. 
2. Tim. 2. 24.  The mild Beams of the Sun wrought more effectually upon the Traveller, than the blustering Blasts of the Northwind. Generosus est animus hominis. The mind of man is Generous and is more easily led then drawn: The Lord was not in the loud wind nor in the Earthquake, nor in the Fire; but in a still voice. 
1 Kings 19 12.  Such a one Master Sergeants is not.  
If he had objected but two or three Absurdityes or contradictions, it had been able to have troubled a man, because there might have been some Verisimilitude in it: but when he Metamorphoseth my whole Discourse into absurdityes and Contradictions, that they lie as thick as Samsons Enemies, 
judges 15. 10.  heaps upon heaps with the jawbone of an Ass, it showeth plainly that they are but made Dragons, without any reality in them. Like that strange Monster which a cunning Cheat promised to show his credulous Spectators, An Horse whose head stood in the place of his Tail: And when all came to all, he himself had tied the Horse to the manger the wrong way; There needs no Application. So an expert Puppet-player can at his pleasure make the little Actors chide and fight one with another, and knock their own heads against the Posts, by secret Motions which he himself dareth them. So the Picture of a glorified Saint, by changing of the prospect, may be turned into a poor Lazar.  
He professeth that he hath the gift of unpraejudiced sincerity, if he could be credited upon his bare word: but Remember to Distrust, was Epictetus his jewel. No man proclaimeth in the Streets that he hath rotten Wares to sell: and jugglers when they are about to play their tricks use to strip up their sleeves in assurance of fair dealing. What pledge he hath given us in this Treatise of such Candour and unprejudiced sincerity, we may observe by the sequel.  
In sum (Reader he complaineth much of Wording: yet he himself hath nothing but words. He calleth earnestly for rigid Demonstrations, but produceth none; And if the nature of the subject would bear one, he knows a way how to turn it into a Contradiction. He hateth Contradictions with all his heart, Mistake him not, it is in another not in himself. It were to be wished that he knew a little better what Contradictions are, least innocent propositions go to wrack in his fury under the Notion of Contradictions, As poor old women do for witches in some part of the world. He is a great Friend to Christian Peace, and a mighty Desirer of Unity if we may trust his word; If he be indeed, it will be the better for him one Day, but who would have thought it, that scratching and biting among reasonable men were a ready way to Unity. I doubt it is but such an Unity as Rabshakeh desired between Senacherib and Hezekiah, a slavish Unity. I proposed but three Expedients in the Conclusion of my Vindication of the Church of England, to obtain a wished peace in Christian doom, such as themselves cannot deny to be lawful, and all moderate men will judge necessary to be done. To reduce the present Papacy to the Primitive form, The Essentials of faith to the Primitive Creed, And Public and private devotions to the Primitive Leiturgies: But this peaceable man is so far from listening to them, that he doth not vouchsafe to take notice of them; But in answer wisheth us To receive the root of Christianity, that is Practical Infallibility in the Church, (he meaneth the Church of Rome) which being denied there is no religion left in the world. His stile is too-sharp, his judgement over partial, his Experience too small, his sentences and censures over rash and ' rigorous, his Advises too Magisteriall, to be a fit instrument of procuring peace. But let us listen to those truths which he proposeth whether they be as he avoucheth (with more Confidence than discretion) as evident in themselves, as that two and three make five. If he can make this good, his work is done: but if there be no such thing, as thou wilt find, learn that all is not gold that glisters; And let him take heed that ' his new light be not an ignis fatuus, which maketh Precipices seem plain ways to wandrimg mis●ed persons.   

A SURREJOINDER or Defence of the Bishop of Derrys Reply to the Appendix of Mr. William Serjeant.  
The First part of his Rejoinder is a Corollary, drawn from his former Principles brought against Doctor Hammond. That little remains to be replied to me in substantial points, Since neither can I deny there is now a breach made between us, Nor do I pretend demonstrative and rigorous evidence, that the Pope's Authority was an Usurpation, Nor lastly do I pretend that probable reasons are a sufficient ground to renounce an Authority so strongly supported by long possession, and Universal Delivery of immediate Forefathers as come from Christ, or that it was prudence to hazard a Schism upon the uncertain Lottery of a Probability. These grounds are supposed by him to be demonstrated against Doctor Hammond; and are barely repeated here, to try if he can kill two Birds with one Bolt made of a Burr. But I refuse the Province at present as a needless and a thankless Office; N'eedlesse in respect of his learned Adversary, who will show him sufficiently the weakness of his pretended Demonstration, 
Pag. 543.  And thankless, in respect of himself, who had taxed me in this Rejoinder of busying myself to answer an objection that was not addressed to me.  
Yet lest Mr. Serjeant should feign that I seek Subterfuges, I will briefly and clearly declare my Sense of his grounds as they are here proposed, that he may fight no more with his own shadow as it is his common use; in hope I may recover his good opinion of my Candour and ingenuity. And if it please him, he may borrow Diogenes his Candle and Lantern at noon Day to search for contradictions.  
First that there is a breach between them and us is too evident and void of Question. Whether they or we be guilty of making this breach, They by excommunicating us, or obtruding unlawful Conditions of their Communion upon us, or we by separating from them without sufficient Grounds, is a question between us. But that which changeth the whole state of the Question is this, If any Bishop or Church or Court Whatsoever, shall presume to change the ancient Discipline of the Church and Doctrine of Faith, either by Addition or by Substraction, either all at once or by degrees, and in so doing shall make a Breach between them and the Primitive Church, or between them and the present Catholic Church; To separate from him or them in those things wherein they had first separated from the Ancient or present Catholic Church, is not Schism but trûe piety. Now we affirm that the later Bishops of Rome did alter the Discipline of the Church and Doctrine of Faith, by changing their beginning of Unity into a Plenitude and Universality of Sovereign jurisdiction, and by adding of new Essentials of Faith to the Creed; and in so doing had made a former Breach between themselves and all the rest of the Christian World. Here the Hinge of the Controversy is, moved. Hitherwards all his supposed Demonstrations o●ght to have looked. Neither will it avail him anything to say there can be no sufficient cause of Schism, for in this case the Separation is not Schism but the cause is Schism.  
Secondly if by Demonstrative and rigorous Evidence he understand perfect Demonstrations according to the exact rules of Logic, Neither is this cause capable of such demonstrations, nor can his Mediums amount unto it: but if by Demonstrative evidence, he understand only convincing proofs, as it seemeth by opposing it to probable reasons I have made it evident that the Pope's Authority which he did sometimes excercise in England, before the Reformation when they permitted him, and which he would have exercised always the futuro, if he could have had his own will, was a mere Usurpation and innovation never attempted in the British Churches for the first six hundred years; Attempted but not admitted by the Saxon Churches for the next five hundred years; And damned by the Laws of the successive Norman Kings ever since, as destructive to the rights of the English Crown, and the Liberties of the English Church, as shall be manteined where soever occasion offers itself. Yet all this while I meddle not with his beginning of Unity; If he want that respect from me, it is his own fault.  
And this includeth an answer to his third ground that the Papal Authority which we rejected, was so strongly supported by long possession and the Universal Delivery of Forefathers as come from Christ. He had always some show of right for his beginning of Unity, but no pretence, in the world for his Sovereignty of power. To make Laws, To repeal Laws, to dispense with the Cannons of the Universal Church, to hold Legantine Courts, to dispose of Ecclesiastical preferments to call the subjets out of the kingdoms, to impose tributes at his pleasure and the like. We will show him such an usurpation as this; Let him prove such a Papacy by universal tradition, and he shall be great Apollo to me. We do not hold it prudence to hazard a Schism upon probabilities: but trust me such a multitude of palpable usurpations as we are able to reckon up, so contrary to the fundamental Laws of England, which were grounded upon the ancient Privileges of the British and Saxon Churche●, together with the addition of twelve new articles or Essentials to the Creed at once by Pius the fourth (I say addition not explication) are more than probabilities. He converseth altogether in Generals, a Papacy or no Papacy, which is commonly the Method of deceivers: but if he dispute or treat with us, we must make bold to draw him down to particulars; Particulars did make the Breach.  
I censured his light and ludicrous title of Down derry modestly in these words. It were strange if he should throw a good cast who soles his Bowl upon an undersong, alluding to that ordinary and elegant expression, in our English tongue, Sole your bowl well, that is, be careful to begin your work well.  Dimidium facti, qui bene cepit habet. 
The Printer puts seals for soles, which easy error of the press any rational man might have found out: but Mr. Sergeants pen runs at random, telling the Reader, that I am Mystically proverbial, that I am far the better Bowler. Surely he did but dream it. And that he himself is so inexpert, as not to understand what is meant by sealing a Bowl upon an undersong. If he were such a stranger in his Mother's Tongue, Yet he might have learned of some of his friends what soaling a Bowl was, rather than burden the press, and trouble the World with such empty and impertinent Vanities Neither did his pleasant humour rest here, but twice more in his short Rejoinder he is pursuing this innocent Bowl. Afterwards he telleth us that I was beholden to the merry Stationer for this Title, who without his knowledge or approbation would needs make it his Post-past to his bill of fare. This answer if it be true had excused himself: but it showeth that the Stationer was over scurriloufly audacious, to make such Antepasts and Postpasts at his pleasure. Neither is it likely that the composer was such a perfect stranger to our langnage as he intimateth in his Epistle, and the merry Stationer so well versed in our Vndersongs. But after all this he owneth it by telling us that the jest was very proper and fatal. Yes as fatal as it is for his Rejoinder to contain 666 pages, which is just the number of the Beast. His merry Stationer might easily have contrived it otherwise, for fear of a fatality, by making one page more or less, but his mind was otherwise taken up, how to cheat his Customers with counterfeit bills of fare, which they will never find, I will endeavour to cure him, of his opinion of fatality.  


Sect: I. Cap: I.  
BEcause Mr. Serjeant complaineth much of wording, and yet giveth his Reader nothing but words, and calleth so often for rigorous demonstrations, yet produceth nothing for his part which resembleth a strict demonstration; and because this first part of his discourse is the Basis or ground work of the whole building, whereof he boasteth that it doth charge the guilt of Schism upon our Church, not only with Colour but with undeniable Evidence, I will reduce his discourse into a Logical form, that the Reader may see clearly where the Water sticks between us. Whatsoever he prateth of a rigorous demonstrative way as being only conclusive, it is but a Copy of his countenance. He cannot be ignorant, or if he be, he will find by experience that his glittering principles will fail him in his greatest need, and leave him in the dirt. I have known sundry fantastic Persons who have been great pretenders to demonstration, but always successless, and for the most part ridiculous. They are so conceitedly curious about the premises, that commonly they quite mistake their conclusion: Causes encumbered with Circumstances, and those left to the election of free agents, are not very capable of demonstration.  
The Case in difference between us is this as it is stated by me, 
Schism disarmed. pag. 306.  Whether the Church of England have withdrawn themselves from Obedience to the Vicar of Christ and separated from the Communion of the Catholic Church.  
And upon those Terms it is undertaken by him in the words immediately following, And that this Crime is justly charged upon his Church not only with Colour, but with undeniable Evidence of fact, will appear by the position of the Case, and the nature of his exceptions. We have the State of the Controversy agreed upon between us, Now let us see how he goeth about to prove his intention.  
What Church soever did upon probable reasons without any necessary or convincing grounds break the Bonds of Unity ordained by Christ in the Gospel and agreed upon by all true churches, is guilty of Schism: But the Church of England in Henry the eight●s days did upon probable reasons without any necessary or convincing grounds, break the Bonds of Unity ordained by Christ in the Gospel and agreed upon by all true churches, therefore the church of England is guilty of Schism. I do readily assent to his Major proposition, and am ready to grant him more if he had pleased to insert it, That that Church is Schismatical which doth break the Bonds of Unity ordained by Christ in his Gospel, whatsoever their reasons be whether convincing or probable, and whosoever do either consent to them or descent from them: But I deny his Minor which he endeavoureth to prove thus.  
Whatsoever Church did renounce or reject these two following Rules or Principles, first that [The doctrines which had been inherited from their Forefathers as the Legacies of Christ and his Apostles were solely to be acknowledged for Obligatory, and nothing in them to be changed.] Secondly that [Christ had made St. Peter first or chief or Prince of his Apostles, who was to be the first mover under him in the Church after his departure out of this World, and to whom all others in difficulties concerning Matters belonging to Universal faith or Government, should have recourse, and that the Bishops of Rome as Successors from St. Peter inherited from him this privilege in respect of the Successors of the rest of the Apostles.) That Church did break the Bonds of Unity ordained by Christ in his Gospel, and agreed upon between the Church of England and the Church of Rome and the rest of her communion. But the Church of England did all this in Henry the eyghts' days that very year where in this unhappy Separation began, upon merely probable, no convincing grounds. Therefore etc.  
To his former Proposition I made this exception, That he would obtrude upon us she Church of Rome and its dependants for the Catholic Church: Upon this he flieth out as it is his Custom into an invective discourse, telling me, I look a squint at his position of the case. He will not find it so in the conclusion, And that I strive Hocuspocus like to divert my Spectators eyes, With a great deal more of such like froth, where in there is not a syllable to the purpose, except this, that he did not mention the word Catholic in that place. The greater was his fault. It is a foul Solecism in Logic not to conclude contradictorily. I did mention the Catholic Church in the State of the Question. Whether the church of England had separated itself from the communion of the Catholic Church. And he had undertaken in the words immediately following, to charge that very Schism upon us with undeniable Evidence. And in his very first Essay shuffles out the Catholic Church, and in the place thereof thrusts in the Church of Rome with all the rest of her communion. He might have known that we do not look upon the Church of Rome with all the rest of her Communion as the Catholic Church; Nor as above a fifth part of the present Catholic Church; And that we do not ascribe any such in fallibility in necessary truths to the Roman Church with all her dependants, as we do to the true Catholic Church, Nor esteem it always Schismatical to separate from the modern Roman Church, Namely in those points wherein she had first separated both from the primitive Roman Church, and from the present Catholic Church. But we confess it to be always Schismatical to separate from the Communion of the Catholic Church united. Thus much he ought to take notice of, and when he hath oecasion hereafter to write upon this Subject, not to take it for granted (as they use to do) that the Catholic Church and the Roman Church are convertible Terms, or tell us a Tale of a Tub what their Tenet is, that these Churches which continue in Communnion with the Roman are the only true Churches. We regard not their Schismatical and uncharitable Tenets now, no more than we regarded the same tenets of the donatists of old. They must produce better authority than their Own, and more substantial proofs than he hath any in his Budget, to make us believe that the Roman Church is the Catholic Church. It is charity to acknowledge it to be a Catholic church inclusively; but the greatest uncharitableness in the world to make it the Catholic church exclusively, that is to separate from Christ and from hope of Salvation as much as in them lieth all Christians who are not of their own communion. Howsoever, it is well that they who used to vaunt that the Enemy trembled at the name of the Catholic church, are now come about themselves to make the Catholic Church to be an appendix to the Roman. Take notice Reader that this is the first time that Mr. Serjeant turns his back to the question, but it will not be the last.  
My next ta●ke is to examine his two Rules or Bonds of Unity. 
the rule of faith.  And first concerning his Rule of faith, I do not only approve it but thank him for it; and when I have a purpose to confute the 12 new Articles of Pius the fourth, I will not desire a better medium than it. And I do Cordially subscribe to his Censure, that the Transgressor's there of are indeed those who are truly guilty of that horrid Schism which is now in the Christian world.  
To his second Rule or principle for Government that Christ made S●. Peter First or Chief or Prince of his Apostles, 
The rule of Government No controversy about St. Peter.  who was to be the first mover under him in the church, after he departed out of this world to whom all others should have recourse in greater Difficulties. If he had not been a mere Novice and altogether ignorant of the Tenets of our English Church, he might have known that we have no controversy with S●. Peter, nor with any other about the privileges of St. Peter, Let him be First, Chief, or Prince of the apostles, in that sense wherein the Ancient Fathers styled him so, Let him be the First Ministerial Mover, And why should not the Church have recourse to a prime Apostle or Apostolical Church in doubtful cases? The learned Bishop of Winchester (of whom it is no shame for him to learn) might have taught him thus much, not only in his own name, but in the name of the King and Church of England, 
Resp. ad Apol Bellarm ●. 1.  Neither is it questioned among us whether St. Peter had a Primacy, but what that Primacy was. And whether it were such an one as the Pope doth now Challenge to himself, and you challenge to the pope. But the King do●h not deny Peter to have been the prime and prince of the Apostles. I wonder how it cometh to pass that he who commonly runneth over in his expressions, should now on a sudden become so dry upon this Subject. If this be all, be needed not to have forsaken the Communion of the Church of England, for any great Devotion that he beareth to St. peter, more than we.  
But yet we dare not rob the rest of the Apostles to clothe St. Peter, We say clearly with St. Cyprian, Hoc erant utique & caeteri Apostoli quod fuit petrus, pari consortio praediti & honoris & Po●estatis, sed exordium ab Vnitate proficisci●ur, 
cyprian de Vnitate Eccles.  Primatus Petro da●ur ut una christi Ecclesia & una ca●hedr a monstretur, The rest of the Apostles were even the same thing that Peter was, endowed with an equal Fellowship both of honour and power: but the beginning cometh from Unity, the primacy is given to Peter, to signify one church and one chair. It is well known that St. Cyprian made all the Bishop ricks in the World to be but, one mass, Episcopatus unus est Episcoporum multorum concordi numerositate diffusus, 
Ep. 52. ad Anton. de Vnitate.  whereof every Bishop had an entire part, cujus a singulis in solidum pars tenetur. All that he attributeth to St. Peter is this beginning of Unity this primacy of Order, this pre-eminence to be the Chief of Bishops, To be Bishop of the principal Church from whence Sacerdot all Unity did spring, 
Ep. 55. ad Cornel.  Yet I esteem St. Cyprian as favourable an Expositor to the See of Rome, as any they will find out of their own Chair that was no more interessed in that See. This primacy neither the Ancients nor we do deny to St. Peter, of Order, of Place, of pre-eminence, if this first Movership would serve his turn, this controversy were at an end for our parts. But this Primacy is over lean, The Court of Rome have no Gusto to it, They thirst after a visible Monarchy upon earth, an absolute Ecclesiastical Sovereignty, A power to make Canons, to abolish Canons, to dispense with Canons, to impose pensions to dispose dignities, to decide Controversies by a single Authority. This was that which made the breach, not the innocent Primacy of St. Peter, as I shall demonstrate by evident proofs as clear as the noon day light.  
Observe Reader that Mr. Serjeant is making another Vagare our of the lists, to seek for his Adversary where he is sure not to find him, here after if he have a mind to employ his pen upon this subject and not to bark at the Moonshine in the water, let him endeavour to demonstrate these four things which we deny indeed.  
First that each Apostle had not the same power over the Christian world by virtue of Christ Commission (As my Father sen● me so send I you) which St. Peter had. 
Io. 20. 21.   
Secondly that St. Peter ever exercised a single jurisdiction over the persons of the rest of the Apostles, more than they over him besides and over and above his Primacy of Order, or beginning of Unity.  
Thirdly that St. Peter a loan had his Commission granted to him by Christ as to an Ordinary Pastor, to him and his Successors, And all the rest of the Apostles had their Commissions only as Delegates for term of life; This new hatched Distinction being the foundation of the present Papacy, I would be glad to see one good author for it, who writ within a tho●sand years after Christ.  
Lastly that the Sovereignty of Ecclesiastical power and jurisdiction rested in St. Peter alone, and was exercised by him alone, and not by the Apostolical College, During the history of the Acts of the Apostles.  
Now let us proceed from St. Peter to the Pope which is the second part of his rule of Government. 
The ppe Successor to Saint Peter.  And that the Bishops of Rome as Successors of St. Peter inherited from him this Privilige in respect of the Successors of the rest of the Apostles, And actually exercised this power in all the Countries which kept Communion with the Church of Rome. what Privilege? To be the first Bishop, the Chief Bishop, the principal Bishop, the first mover in the Church, just as S. Peter was among the Apostles? we have heard of no other Privilege as yet. If a man would be pleased ou: of mere pity to his starving cause, to suppose thus much, what good would it do him? Doth he think that the pope or the court of Rome would ever accept of such a Papacy as this, or thank him for his double diligence? He must either be meanly versed in the Primitive Fathers, or give little credit to them, who will deny the Pope to succced St Peter in the Roman Bishopric, or will envy him the Dignity of a Patriarch with in his just Bounds. But the Breach between Rome and England was not about any Episcopal, Metropolitical, or patriarchal rights. A Patriarch hath more power in his proper Bishopric then in his province, and more in his province then in the rest of his Patriarchate: But papal power is much greater than any Bishop did ever challenge in his own Diocese. In my answer to his Assumption I shall show sufficiently who they were that Broke this Bond of Union, and are the undoubted Authors of Schism.  
But before I come to that, 
But not by Christ's Ordination.  I would know of him, how the Pope did inherit, all those Privileges which he claimeth from S. Peter, or how he holds them by Christ's own ordination in holy Scripture? First all the Eastern Churches do affirm Confidently that the most of these Privileges were the Legacies of the Church representative, not Christ or St. Peter. And it seemeth to be very true by that of the Council of Sardica, 
Conc. Sardic. c. 3.  Si vobis placet Sancti Petri memoriam honoremus. If all these Privileges were the pope's inheritance, it was not well done of old Osius to put it upon a Si placet, content or not content, and to assign no better a reason then, the memory of a Predecessor. It seemeth likewise to be true by the Council of Chalcedon which attributeth the primacy of the Bishop of Rome to the Decrees of the Fathers and the dignity of that imperial City; 
Conc. chalced.  And when the pope's Legates did oppose the Acts of the Council, 
Act 16.  Gloriosissimi judices dixerunt. The most glorious judges said, let both parties plead the Canons. By the Canons that great Council of six hundred and thirty Fathers did examine it; By the Canons they did determine it, there was no inheritance pretended in the case.  
Secondly if the Bishop of Rome did hold all his privileges by inheritance from S. Peter how much were three successive Popes over seen, Zosimus, Bonifacius and Caelestinus, to ground them upon the canons of the council of Nice, and these either counterfeited or mistaken for the Canons of Sardica▪ Which when the African Fathers did find o●t by the true Copies of the Nicene Council, they rejected that part of papal power as appeareth by their Letter to Pope Celestine We earnestly beseech you that hence forwards you do not easily lend an ear to such as come from hence nor (which Bellarmine cuts of guilefully) receive any more such as are excommunicated by us into your Communion, 
Epist. Conc. Afr. ad caelestin.  with this sharp intimation, Ne fumosum typum saeculi in Ecclesiam videamur inducere. If sovereign judicature did belong to the Bishop of Rome by Inheritance from St. Peter why did three pope's challenge it upon the Decrees of the Nicene council and why did the African Fathers refuse to admit it, because it was not contained in the Decrees of the Nicene Council?  
Thirdly if by Prince of Bishop's Mr Serjeant understand an absolute Prince, one who hath a single Legislative power, To make Canons, To abolish Canons, to dispense with Canons as seemeth good in his own eyes, if he makea greater Prince of the Steward, than he doth of the Spouse of Christ, he will have an hard Province to secure himself from the Censures of the Counsels of Constance and Basile, in the former of which were personally present one Empereur, Two Popes, Two Patriarches, All the Cardinals, The Ambassadors of all' the Princes in the West, and the Flower of Occidental Scholars, Divines and Lawyers. These had reason to know the Tradition of the Universal Church as well as Mr. Serjeant.  
Lastly, before he can determine this to be an undeniable truth, and a necessary Bond of Unity, that the Bishop of Rome is Inheri●er of all the Privileges of St. Peter, And that this Principle is Christ's own Ordination recorded in Scripture, He must first reconcile himself to his own party. There is a Commentary upon the Synodall answer of the council of Basile, printed at Colone in the year 1613. 
comment in Epist. Synodal conc. Basil. pa. 31. b.  wherein is maintained, 
Idem pag. 40.  That the Provinces subject to the four great Patriarches from the beginning of the Christian church, did know no other Supreme but their own Patriarches. And if the Pope be a Primate it is by the church, If he be the head of all churches it is by the church: and where as we have said that it is expressed in the council of Nice, that many provinces were subjected to the church of Rome by Ecclesiastical custom, and no other right, the Synod should do the greatest injury to the Bishop of Rome, if it should attribute those things to him only from Custom, which were his due by divine right.  
Gerson goeth much more accurately to work, 
Gerson de vita spirit. animae.  distinguishing Papal rights into three sorts, divine, which the Bishop of Rome challengeth by succession from St. Peter, Canonical, wherewith he hath been trusted by general counsels, and civil, granted to that See by the Emperors. Of the first sort he reckoneth no more but three privileges, To call counsels, To give sentencee with counsels, and jurisdiction purely spiritual.  
Among the Propositions given in to the council of Pisa and printed with the acts of the council, 
Acta con●. primi Pisani impres. Lutet. 1612. fol. 69.  we find these, first, Although the Pope as he is the Vicar of Christ may after a certain manner be called the head of the church: Yet the Unity of the church doth not depend necessarily, or receive its beginning from the Unity of the Pope. Secondly, The church hath power and authority originally and immediately from Christ its head to congregate itself in a gonerall council, to preserve its Unity. It is added, That the Catholic church hath this power also by the Law of Nature. Thirdly, In the Acts of the Apostles we read of four Counsels Convocated and not by the Authority of Peter, but by the Common Consent of the Church. And in one Council celebrated at jerusalem, we read not that Peter, but that james the Bishop of the Place was Precedent and gave Sentence. He concludeth that the Church may call a General Council without the Authority of the Pope, and in some cases, though he contradict it. The Writers and writings of those times, in and about the Counsels of Constance and Basile and the two Pisan Counsels, 
Can. lo. l. 6. c. 8 Cus. concord. catholl. 2. ca 34. Stap. de principfid. l. 13 ca 15. So●o 4. sent. didst 24. qu▪ 2. art. 5 Driedo de Ecclesiast. dog. li. 4. c. 3. Contar. De Potest. Pont.  do a bound with such expressions.  
Before he determined positively. The divine right of the Papacy as it includeth a Sovereignty of power, he ought to consider seriously what many of his own friends have written about it; as Canus, and Cusanus, and Stapleton, and Soto, and Driedo, and Segovius, as it is related by Aeneas Silvius and others; That the Pope's succession is not revealed in Scripture; That Christ did not limit the Primacy to any particular Church; That it cannot be proved that the Bishop of Rome is perpetual Prince of the Church; That the Gloss which preferreth the judgement of the Roman Church before the judgement of the world, singular and foolish and unworthy to be followed; That it hath been a Catholic Tenet in former times, that the Primacy of the Roman Bishop doth depend not upon divine, but human right and the positive Decrees of the Church; That men famous in the Study of Christian Theology, 
Aen● Silvius de Gest. Bas. Conc. li  have not been afraid in great Assemblies to assert the Humane Right of the Pope. He ought to Consider what is said of a great King, that Theologians affirmed that the Pope was the head of the Church by divine right, 
Sleid. li. 9  but when the King required them to prove it, they could not demonstrate it, And lastly what the Bishop of Chalcedon saith lately, To us it sufficeth that the Bishop of Rome is St. Peter's Successor: 
Bish Chalc: Survey cap. 5.  and this all Fathers Testify, and all ihe Catholic Church believeth, but whether he be so Jure divino or humano, is no point of Faith.  
Here Reader I must entreat the before we proceed a step-farther to read his Assertion, 
Schism. disarmed Pa. 304.  That the Constant belief of the Catholic World was and is, that this Principle (namely that the Bishop of Rome inherited the Privileges of St. Peter) is Christ's own Ordination recorded in Scripture, Derived to us by the strongest Evidences that our Nature is capable of. What a strange Confidenee is this, to tell his Readers he cares not what so it may serve his present turn? How should this be recorded in Scripture, when the Bisshoprick of Rome is never mentioned in Scripture, nor so much as whether St. Peter ever was at Rome? Except we understand Rome by Babylon? but this is too remote and too obscure to be Christ's own Ordinance. If it be recorded in Scripture, it is either in Nicodemus his Gospel, or in the Pope's Decretal Epistles. Certainly in the Genuine Scriptures there is no manner of mention of any such thing.  
Hear the ingenuons Confession of a more learned Adversary, 
Bellar de Rome Pont● lib. 4. cap 4.  Neque Scriptura neque Traditio habet, sedem Apostolicam ita fixam esse Romae ut inde auferri non possit, there is neither Scripture nor Trrdition to prove that the See of St. Peter is so fixed to Rome, that it cannot be taken from it. But if the Bishop of Rome did inherit the Privileges of St. Peter By Christ's own Ordination recorded in Scripture, than there were Scripture to prove, that it cannot be taken away from Rome. Christ's own Ordination must not be violated Behold both his grounds Scripture and Tradition swept away at once.  
It will not serve his turn at all to say 
Schism. dis. pa. 504.  that I take him in a Reduplicative sense as if he spoke of the Bishops of Rome, 
Schism, dis. pa. 504.  as of Rome. Either Christ ordained in Scripture that the Bishop of Rome should succeed St. Peter in his privileges, And then the Bishop of Rome doth succeed St. Peter as Bishop of Rome. Or Christ hath not ordained in Scripture that the Bishop of Rome should succeed S. Peter in his privileges; And then the Bishop of Rome is not St. Peter Successor by Christ's own Ordination. He may be his Successor upon another account: but by Christ's own Ordination recorded in Scripture he cannot be, if Christ himself have not ordained in holy Scripture that he should be. He addeth that I picked these Words out of a Paragraph a leaf after. Why? is he not bound to speak truth in one Paragraph as well as in another? Or will he oblige one who combatteth with him to watch where his Buckler is ready▪ and be sure to hit that? These things are as clear as the light, and yet he vapours about my frivolous and impertinent answers, and wonders how any man can have the patience to read such a Trisler. Let the Reader judge which Scale hath more weight in it.  
How should the Bishop of Rome's Succession to S. Peter be Christ's own ordination recorded in Scripture; When both his fellows and he himself do ground the Bishop of Rome's right to succeed St. Peter upon the fact of St. Peter: Namely, his dying Bishop of Rome? 
Bell. de Rom. Pont. l. 2 cap. 12. and lib. 4. ca 4.  Bellarmine distinguisheth between the Bishop of Rome's succession of St. Peter, and the reason of his succession. The succession (saith he) is from the institution of Christ by divine right, and commanded by Christ: but the reason of this succession is from the fact of S. Peter, not from the institution of Christ. Which two are irreconciliable. For if Christ commanded that the Bishop of Rome should succeed St. Peter (as he saith) Deus ipse jussit Romae figi Apostolicam Petri sedem, quae autem jubet Deus mutari ab hominibus non possunt, Then not the fact of St. Peter, but the mandate of Christ is the reason of the succession. There was no need that St. Peter should do any thing to perfect the commandment of Christ: and on the otherside, if the fact of St. Peter be the true reason of the Bishop of Rome's succession, then it is evident that Christ did not command it. Let it be supposed to avoid impertinent disputes, that Christ did create a chief Pastor of his church as an office of perpetual necessity, without declaring his pleasure who shall be his successor, but leaving the choice either to the chief Pastor or to the church: without peradventure in such a case the Office is from Christ and the perpetuity is from Christ, but the right of the Successor is from them who make the application, whether if be the Chief Pastor, or the Church. The Succession of the Bishop of Rome to S. Peter. is not recorded in Scripture; The fact of S. Peter. is not recorded in Scripture. No such ordination of Christ is recorded in Scripture, that the Bishop of Rome should be S. Peter's Successor; And therefore it is impossible that the Succession of the Bishop of Rome to S. Peter. should be Christ's own ordination recorded in Scripture.  
Then what is this Mandate of Christ? and where contained? The Mandate is an old legend contained in Marcellinus, Leo, Athanasius, Ambrose, and Gregory, some of which point at it, others relate it, some define it as a matter of faith. That S. Peter a little before his Passion being ready to depart out of Rome did meet Christ in the gate who told him that he came to Rome to be Crucified again, Thereby intimating that St. Peter must suffer martyrdom there. Here is no mandate of Christ to S. Peter to fix his See at Rome, much less that he should place it there for ever, never to be removed. True (saith Bellarmine) but yet non est improbabile Dominum etiam aperte jussisse ut Sedem suam Petrus ita figeret Romae ut Romanus Episcopus absolute ei succederet. It is not improbable that the lord did command plainly that Peter should fix his See at Rome, that the Roman Bishop should succeed him absolutely. Alas? this is but a poor ground to build a man's faith upon, that it is not improbable. And therefore the said Author proceedeth, Tame●si forte etc. Although peradventure it be not of divine right that the Romaen Bishop because he is the Roman Bishop, doth succeed S. Peter in the prefecture of the Church.  
And though it were supposed a point of faith, That the Bishop of Rome were S. Peter's Successor: Yet it cannot be a point of faith that Pope Vrban or Pope Clement are S. Peter's Successors, and true Bishops of Rome, because there can be no more than moral Certainty for it. Who can assure us of their right Baptisms and right Ordinations, according to the common Roman grounds? How can we be sure of their Canonical Election, that two third parts of the Cardinals did concur, or that the Election by Cardinals now, and by the Emperors, and by the People formerly were all Authentic, forms, though I doubt not but any of these might serve to obtain an humane right? But especially what can secure us from the ●aint of Simoniacal Pravity, which they who knew the Intrigues of States do tell us hath born too great Vogue in the Conclave of late days? And if it cannot be a point of Faith to believe the present Pope is St. Peter's Successor for these reasons; neither can it be a point of Faith that any of them all hath been his Successor for the same reasons. I do not urge these things to encourage any man to withdraw Obedience from a lawful Superior, either upon improbable or probable suppositions but to show their temerarious presumption who do so easily change humane right into Divine right, and make many things to be necessary points of Faith, for which there never was revelation or more than Moral Certainty.   

Sest. I. Cap. II.  
The next thing which offereth itself to our Consideration is his Minor Proposition, 
Oral and immediate tradition no certain rule.  Whether the church of England did break these Bonds of Unity &c▪ But I hold it more Methodical to examine first the Proofs of his Major, That these were the right Bonds of Unity, and so dispatch that part out of my hands.  
All which was agreed upon unanimouslly between the Church of Rome and its dependants, and the Church of England, and deliured from hand to hand in them all by the Oral and immediate Tradition of a World of Fathers to a world of Children successively, as a rule of Faith or Difcipline received from Christ and his Apostles, which so vast a Multitude of Eye witnesses did see visibly practised from Age to Age, is undoubtedly true, and such a rule is infallible and impossibe to be Crooked.  
But these two Rules are such Rules.  
And so he concludeth that they are incapable of Usurpations, and as easy to teach faith as Children learn their A B C.  
I have given his Argument as much force and edge as I could possibly; but all this Wind shakes no Corn. His other two Rules were not so much to be blamed; as this Rule of Rules, Oral and immediate Tradition. 
Mat. 15. 6.  Of such Oral and immediate Tradition it was that our Saviour told the Sribes and Pharisees, That they made the Commandments of God of none effect by their Tradition, 
1. Pet▪ 1. 18.  And St. Peter told the dispersed jews, that they were redeemed by the blood of Christ from their vain Conversation received by Tradition from their Fathers. These were▪ such Traditions as The jews pretended they had received from Moses and the Prophets: as the Romanists pretend now to have received their Traditions from Christ and his Apostles. Otherwise, we do not only admit Oral Traditions in general, as an excellent Introduction to the Doctrine of saving truth, and a singular help to expound the holy Scriptures: but also particular unwritten Traditions derived from the Apostles and delivered unto us by the manifest Testimony of the Primitive Church, being agreeable to the holy Scriptures. The Apostles did speak by inspiration as well as write, and their Tradition whether by word or writing indifferently was the word of God, into which faith was resolved: The Traditions of the Catholic Church of this present or another age, have this Privilege, to be free from all Errors that are absolutely Destructive to Salvation: but this they have not from the nature of Tradition; which is subject to Error, to Corruption, to Change, to Contradiction: Mobilitate viget viresque acquirit eundo. but from the special Providence and protection of Christ, who hath promised to be with his Church until the end of the World.  
In sum, I deny both his Propositions, First his Major. Immediate Tradition from Parents to Children is not a certain and infallible Rule of Truth and Faith. Traditions are often doubtful, do often change with the times, and sometimes contradict one another: As we see in the Different Traditions of the Eastern and Western Churches about the observation of Easter, And the Counsels of Nice and Frankford about Images etc. Neither points of Faith nor Papal rights are so visible as he imagineth. Credulity, and Ignorance, and Prejudice, and Passion, and Interest, do all act their parts. Upon his Grounds there can be no Ecclesiastical Usurpations: yet Experience teacheth us that there have been such Usurpations in all Ages. If he had reason to renounce the immediate Tradition of his Father and Grandfather and great Grandfather; Then others may have the like and better reasons. Let him believe the Suns dancing upon Easter morn, and the Swanssinging, and the Pelican's digging of her Breast with her Bill, and all the Stories of King Arthur and Robin Hood, for it may be he hath received all these from his Elders by immediate Tradition.  
He himself Confesseth that the possession of goverument must be such a possession as may be presumable to have come from Christ, not of such an one as every one knows when it began. P. 49. To what purpose is it to pretend tradition for all those branches of Papal power which are in controversy between them and us, seeing all of them had their first original eleven hundred years after Christ?  
Secondly, this is not all, he ascribeth moreover too much to the immediate Tradition of the present Church, but much more than too much to the immediate Tradition of his elders, to make it absolutely infallible cui non potest subesse falsum, and to resolve Faith into it, The last resolution of Faith must be into that which is formally the word of God. The voice of the present Church may be materially the word of God in regard of the matter and thing testified: but it cannot be formally the word of God, in respect of the Witnesses and manner of testifying. But immediate Tradition is often a Seminary of Errors.  
Thirdly he makes the Oral and immediate Tradition of Fathers to their Child●ren, to be a more ready and safe Rule of Faith then the holy Scriptures, which are the Canon of Faith; and so ready, that it is as easy, as for Boys to learn their A B C. and so safe, that it is impossible to be made crooked.  
Lastly he Confoundeth the Tradition of the Roman Church with the Tradition of the Catholic Church: yet the one is but particular, 
Aug. lib. 4. contra Donati●tistas cap. 24,  the other Universal Tradition, Saint Augustine setteth us down a certain rule how to know a true genuine Apostolical tradition; Quod univers a tenet Ecclesia, nec Conciliis institutum sed semper Retentum est, nonnifis authoriate Apostolica traditum verissin me creditur. Whatfoever the whole Church doth hold, which was not instituted by counsels, but always received, is most rightly believed to have been delivered by Apostolical authority. These three marks, conjoinctly do most firmly prove an Apostolical Tradition. I do not deny but that there have been Apostolical Traditions which have wanted some of these Marks, but they were neither necessary to salvation, nor can be proved at this day after sixteen hundred years to have been Apostolical Traditions. Whatsoever wanteth either universality or perpetuity is not absolutely vecessary. Neither can the reception of one Apostolical Church prove a tradition to be Apostolical, if other Apostolical Churches do reject it, and contradict it.  
To conclude we give all due respect to Tradition; but not so much to Oral Tradition as to Written Tradition, as beingmore certain, less subject to mistakes, and more easily freed from mistakes, Litter a scriptamanet. A serious person if he be but to deliver a long message of importance from one to another, will be careful either to receive it in writing, or put it in writing. Nor so much to particular immediate Tradition, as we do to Universal and perpetual tradition. He overshooteth himself beyond all aim in affirming of immediate and Particular Tradition, that where it hath place it is impossible for usurpations or abuses to enter or find admittance. He might as well tell us that it is impossible to make a crooked line with a leaden Rule. Particular Tradition is flexible and is often bended according to the interests and inclinations of particular ages and places and persons. He saith, that there can be no encroachments so as men adhere to this method that is immediate Tradition. He telleth us that they did adhere to this Method, and that there was such immediate Tradition: and yet we have seen and felt that encroachments and usurpations and abuses, did not only creep into the Church, but like a Violent Torrent did bear down all opposition before them. I produce but two Witnesses, but they are beyond exception. The one is Pope Adrian the sixth in his Instructions to his Nuncio Franciscus Cheregatus when he sent him to the Germane Princes at the diet of Nuremberg, 
Apud Goldast Const. Imper. pa. 29.  We know that in the holy See for some years past, many things have been to be abhominated, Abuses in Spiritual things, Excesses in Mandates, and all things changed perversely. Neither is it to be marveiled at, if sickness descend from the head to the members, from the Chiefest Bishops to other inferior Prelates, etc. And again, Wherein for so much as concerneth us you shall promise, that we will do our uttermost endeavour, that in the first place this Court from whence peradventure this evil hath proceeded may be reform, that as the Corruption flowed from thence to all inferiors; so likewise the health and reformation of all may proceed from thence. Pope Adrian Confesseth abominable abuses, and excesses, and perverse mutations and corruptions: and yet Mr. Serjeant would make us believe that where this Method of Oral and immediate Tradition is used, there can be no changes. Either this Method was not used, or this Method is not a sufficient preservative against innovations: both ways his demonstration falleth to the ground.  
My other Witness is the Council of nine chief Cardinals, who upon their Oaths delivered up as their veredict, a bundle of abuses, grievons abuses, abuses not to be tolerated, 
council. delect. card. impr. Lutet. p. 1612 & 140.  (they are their own words) ye a Monsters, to Paul the third in the year 1538; beseeching him that these spots might be taken away, which if they were admitted in any Kingdom or Republic would straight bring it to ruin. Never any man did make encroachments and innovatious to be impossible before this man.  
His assumption is as false as his major proposition, 
There was no Tradition for the Divine right of the Papacy.  But these two Rules (whereof this is one part, that the Bishops of Rome as Successors of S. Peter did inherit from him this privilege to be the first or Chief or Princes of Bishops, etc.) Were agreed upon unanimously between the church of Rome and its dependants and the church of England, and delivered from hand to hand in them all by the Oral and immediate Tradition, of a World of Fathers to a World of children successively as a Rule of discipline received from Christ and his Apostles, etc. If all this were true, it concerneth us nothing we may perhaps differ from them in judgment, but have no form quarrel with them about this that I know of. We are willing to submit not only, to the Ordinances of Christ, b●t to the just ordinances of man, and to yield for the common Peace and Tranquillity of Christendom, rather more than is due, then less. But otherwise how was that unanimously agreed upon between the Churches of Rome and England, and so delivered by Fathers to Children as a thing accorded, whereof the Church of Rome is no better accorded within itself unto this day? I mean concerning the divine right of the Bishop of Rome to all the privileges of St. Peter, when the Pope's greatest Champions maintain it so coldly as a thing that is not improbable; that peradventure may be, peradventure may not be, as grounded upon a fact of St. Peter, that is as much as to say not upon the Mandate of Christ?  
And though we should be so kindhearted as to suppose that there is some part of Papal power, in the abstract not in the concrete, which is of Christ's own institution, Namely, The beginning of Unity, that is a power to Convocate the Church, and to preside in the Church, and to pronounce the sentence of the Church, so far and no further than power purely spiritual doth extend; although there be no special mandate of Christ to that purpose, for one to be the successor of S. Peter, or any prime or chief of all other Bishops: yet in the judgement even of the greatest opposers of Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, it is the dictate of nature that one should preside over the rest, 
Beza defenf. pag. 153.  Ex dei ordinatione perpetua necesse fuit, est & erit, ut in Presbyterio quispiam & loco & dignitate primus actioni gubernandae praesit. Yet what is this to that great Bulk of Ecclesiastical Authority which hath been conferred upon that See by the decrees of ecumenical counsels; and by the Civil Sanctions of Christian Emperors▪ which being Humane Institutions may be changed by Humane Authority? Can one scruple of divine right convert a whole mass of Humane right into divine? We see Papal power is not equal or alike in all places, but is extended or contracted variously according to the different Privileges and liberties of several Churches and kingdoms. We see at this day the Pope hath very little to do in Sicily, as I have showed in my Vindication of the Church of England), by reason that one of his Predecessors long since hath alienated in a manner the whole Ecclesiastical jurisdiction to the Sovereign Prince of the Country and to his Heirs. We may call it by deputation or delegation. but this is plain, it is to him and his He●res for ever. This is certain, divine right cannot be extended or contracted; There is no Privilege or prescription against divine right, That which belongeth to one person by divine right cannot be alienated to another person by humane right; for then Humane right should be stronger than divine right.  
In sum although there be some colour or pretext of divine right for a beginning of Unity, wheresoever the Catholic Church should fix it, yet it appeareth evidently by the Universal practice of the Christian world in all ages, that there is no Colour nor so much as a shadow of divine right for all the other Branches of papal power, and those vast Privileges of the Roman Court. In the Council of Constance they damned most of the Articles of john Wickliff down right without hesitation: 
Concil. Constan. Sess. 8.  but when they came to the one and fortieth Article (It is not necessary to Salvation to believe that the Roman Church is supreme among other Churches,) they paused and used some reservation, It is an error if by the Roman Church he understood the Universal Chureh, or a General Council, or for as much as he should deny the primacy of the Pope above other particular Churches, Their judgement is clear enough, they yielded to the Pope primatum not suprematum. A primacy of Order not a supremacy of power; They made him a beginning of Unity to all particular Churches, Yet subjected him to the Universal Church; They looked upon him as Highest Bishop, and Successor of St. Peter, but they believed that a General Council had power to shake his Candlestick, and remove it, if they found it expedient for the good of Christendom.  
If he come so far short of divine right in his fair pretensions; by what right will he seek to justify all his foul Usurpations and enchroachments, which have no decree of any Ecumenical council to warrant them, no Imperial Institntion to authorize them; which have no foundation but the Pope's own decretals? But ● reserve a full account of this for the next part of my Answer. Only Reader be pleased to take notice, that it behoved Mr. Sergeant to have proved his Traditions clearly and distinctly, as to those parts of Papal power which are controverted between us in earnest, with the Universality of it, and the perpetuity of it. This he neither doth nor attempteth to do, nor in deed is he or any other able to do, but merely presumeth it, and slubbereth over the mater in deceitful Generals.   

Sect. I. Cap. III.  
We are come now to the last part of his demonstration, which was the Minor or Assumtion of his former Syllogism, That the Church of England in Henry the eighths' days did break these Rules of Unity upon probable reasons, not convincing grounds. Which being the main question, he should have fortified with proofs: but he according to his Custom thinks to carry it with confidence and clamours, Does not all the World grant and hold that King Henry denied the Pope's Supremacy: Does not all the World see that the pretended Church of England, stands now otherwise in Order, to the Church of Rome, than it did in Henry the sevenths days? etc.  
Was Papal power cast out before? was it not in actual force till and at that time? We beg nothing gratis, but begin our Process upon Truth acknowledged by the whole World. What Papal power king Henry did cast out, and what Papal power we hold out, I shall demonstrate to the World, not confusedly but distinctly, by such proofs as are not to be gainsaid for matter of fact.  
But before I gird myself to the work, it will not be amiss for the freeing of the Cause from future Cumber about them, to give Satisfaction to his two Circumstances, that we did it only upon probable reasons, And in the days of king Henry the eighth. 
Mention of exceptions here impertinent.   
For the first, he keepeth a great stir and bustling every where about our probable reasons, and the nature of our Exceptions. And he would make his reader believe that I have omitted this part of his word● Guilefully. All which discourse is superfluous and impertinent. 
Schism. dispat. pag. 477.  For if he could make good his Conclusion that we have cast out that which Christ himself did ordain in holy Scripture, no reasons nor exceptions can be sufficient or so demonstrative and convincing as to justify a wilful violation of Christ's own ordination. 
Mat. 15. 13  Every Plant (saith our Saviour) which my heavenly father hath not planted shall be roo●ed up. But if this be Christ's own Plant which he himself hath planted, to go about to root it up were plainly to fight against God. We renounce all reasons and all exceptions against Christ's own ordination. His very intimation that we might do what we did upon demonstrative reasons, is an implicit Confession, that it was not against Christ's own ordination.  
There was no need why I should meddle which mine own exceptions here, That was his office in the position of the Case. That case is meanly and partially stated, which is stated but on one side, he ought to have included my Exceptions in his case Besides I was sure to meet which my exceptions in every Section, and therefore reserved them for their proper-places, as being loath to offend the Reader which twice sodden Coleworts. But let him not fear that I will relinquish my Exceptions, I shall maintain them to be demonstrative of the Pope's Usurpations in England, and leave them freely to try it out with his Demonstrations.  
The second Circumstance is concerning the time when the breach is supposed to have been made, 
The first breach before Henry the 8. was borne.  In the days of Henry the eighth; And it is thus far true, that then the breach was declared, and the War proclaimed to all the World: but this breach was making long before Henry the eighth was born; form the days of Pope Hildebrand for about four hundred years. There was no open hostility indeed between the Court of Rome and the Church and Kingdom of England: but they were still upon their Guards, and still seeking to gain ground one upon another, as appeareth by the decrees and Laws and Machinations of those times. A breach in a strong Tower is long making before the Walls tumble visibly down; A Scathfire is long kindling before it break out in an universal flame. A cronical disease is long gathering and forming before the certain Symptoms there of do appear. We use to say the second blow makes the fray, but the first blow makes the Battery and the guilt. All that time that they were forcing their gross usurpations upon us, the Breach was making.  
I have done which his two Circumstances. 
Every one involved in a Schism▪ is not a formal Schtsmatick.  The Substance of his Assumption remaineth. But before I grapple with him about that, give me leave to lay down four grounds or Considerations, so indifferent that no rational man can deny them. The first is that every one who is involved materially in a Schism is not a formal Schismatic, no more than ●hee that marrieth after long expectation, believing and having reason to believe that her former Husband was dead, is a formal Adultress, or then he who is drawn to give divine Worship to a creature by some misapprehension, yet addressing his devotions to the true God, is a formal Idolater. A man may be Baptisatus voto (as S. Ambrose said) baptised in his desire, and God Almighty doth accept it: why may he not as well Communicate in his desire, and be accepted with God likewise? If S. Austin say true of Heresy, that. 
Ezech. 162.  He who did not run into his Error out of his own overweening presumption, nor defends it pertinaci●asly, but received it from his seduced parents, and is careful to search out the truth, and ready to be corrected if he find it out, he is not to be reputed among Heretics.  
It is much more true of Schism, that he who is involved in Schism through the error of his Parents or Predecessors, who seeketh carefully for the Truth, and is prepared in his mind to embrace it whensoever he finds it, he is not to be reputed a Schismatic. This very Bond of Unity and preparation of his mind to peace, is an implicit ●enunciation and abjuration of his Schism before God. This is as comfortable a ground for ignorant Roman Catholics, as for any persons that I know, Who are hurried hoodwinked in to erroneous tenets as necessary points of faith, and Schismatical Practices, merely by the authority, and to uphold the interest and ambitions or avaricious courses of the Roman Court.  
My second ground is this, God almighty doth not approve of that unequal proverb, The Fathers have eaten sour Grapes and the children's teeth are set on edge. Posterity is not guilty of their Ancestors transgressions, 
Ezech. 18. 2● we are not chargeable with the excesses of our Predecessors.  further than they do either imitate them or maintain them. Suppose these calumnies had been truths which some have belched forth against our Reformers, that they had Sacrilegious or other sinister ends, it signifieth nothing to us, so long as we neither justify them, nor imitate them. jehues' heart was not over upright; and yet God himself approved his Reformation. Suppose any of our Reformers have run into any excesses or extremes, either in their expressions, or perhaps in their actions, (it is a difficult thing in great changes to observe a just mean,) it may be out of humane frailty, as Lycurgus out of hatred to drunkenness, cut down all the Vines about Sparia: or it may be out of Policy, as men use to bend a crooked Rod, as much the contrary way to make it straight: or as expert Masters in Music do sometimes draw up their Scholars a note too high, to bring them to a just tone. What is that to us so long as we practise the mean and maintain the mean, and guide ourselves by the certain line and Level of Apostolical and primitive Tradition. Charity commands us to think well of our Predecessors, and Theology to look well to ourselves.  
Thirdly, that difference which divines do make between affirmative and negative precepts, 
Negative Precedents prove more strongly then affirmative.  that affirmative bind always, but not to all times, semper but not ad semper. A man is bound always to pray, but is not hound to the actual exercise of prayer at all timts, but neganegative precepts bind both semper and ad semper. The same I say of affirmative and negative precedents, affirmative precedents prove always that such a fact was done, and it may be that it was justly done at that time in that case, but they prove not a right ad semper, to do it at all times The reason is evident, Particular Acts may be done by Connivance, or by special Licence; but a General Prohibition implieth a perpetual right. As for instance I produce Negative Precedents, both General Laws against all appeals to Rome, that no man may appeal to the Pope without the King's Licence, and Particular Prohibitions out of the King's Courts, by form of ordinary justice, against such and such Appeals or such and such Sentences upon Appeals, This argueth a perpetual Right to forbid Appeals, whensoever it is judged expedient: On the otherside he preduceth Precedents of Particular Appeals to Rome, (which he may do of later Days, but for the First eleven hundred years it was not so, This Proveth only the King's Licence or Connivance in such cases, 
negative Precedents prove more strongly then affirmative.  it doth not prove a perpetual Right, because two perpetual Rights contradictory one to another can not be.  
My fourth and last ground is, that neither King Henry the eighth nor any of our Legislators, did ever endeavour to deprive the Bishop of Rome of the power of the Keys or any part thereof, either the Key Order or the Key of jurisdiction, I mean jurisdiction purely spiritual which hath place only in the Inner court of conscience, and over such persons as submit willingly. Nor did ever challenge or endeavour to assume unto themselves either the Key of order or the key of jurisdiction purely Spiritual. All which they deprived the Pope of, all which they assumed to themselves, was the external Regiment of the Church by Coactive power, to be exercised by persons capable of the respective Branches of it This Power the Bishops of Rome never had, ot could have justly over their Subjects but under them whose subjects they were. And there fore when we meet with these words or the like, that no foreign Prelate shall exercise any manner of power jurisdiction Superiority, Pre-eminence or Privilege Ecclesiastical or Spiritual within this Realm, It is not to be understood of internal or purely Spiritual power in the court of conscience, or the power of the Keys: (We see the Contrary practised every day:) but of external and coactive power in Ecclesiastical causes in foro conten●ioso. And that it is and aught to be so understood; I prove clearly by a Proviso in one main Act of Parliament, and a Canon of the English Church.  
First the Proviso is contained in the Act for the Exoneration of the King's Subjects from all Exactions and Impositions paid to the See of Rome. 
XXV. Hen. 8. ca 12.  Provided always this Act nor any thing therein contained shall be here after interpreted or expounded, that your Grace your nobles and Subjects intent by the same to decline and Vary from the Congregation of Christ's Church, in any things concerning the very Articles of the Catholic Faith of Christendom, or any other things declared by the Scripture and the Word of God necessary for your and their Salvations; but only to make an Ordinance by Policies necessary and convenient to repress Vice, and for good Conservation of this Realm in Peace Unity and Tranquillity, from ravine and Spoil, insueing much the old ancient Customs of this Realm in that behalf. They profess their Ordinance is merely Political; What hath a Political Ordinance to do with power purely Spiritual? They seek only to preserve the kingdom from ravine and Spoil; Power purely spiritual can commit no Ravine or Spoil. ●he● follow ancient Customs of the Realm There was no ancient Custom of the Realm for abolition or translation of power purely spiritual. They profess all Conformity to Holy Scriptures; but the power of the keys was evidently given by Christ in Scripture to his Apostles and their Successors, not to Sovereign Princes. If any thing had been contained in this Law for the Abolition or Translation of power merely and purely Spiritual, it had been retracted by this Proviso at the same time it was enacted.  
The Canon is the 37. Canon, where we give the King's Majesty the Supreme Government, We do not give our Kings either the Administration of God's word or Sacraments, which the Injunctions published lately by Queen Elisabeth do most evidently declare, but only that Prerogative which we see to have been always attributed to all Godly Princes by himself in holy Scripture, That is, to preserve or contain all Estates and Orders committed to their trust by God, whether they be Ecclesiastical or Civil in their Duties, and restrein contumacious Offenders with the Civil Sword. You see the Power is Political, the Sword is Political, all is Political, Our Kings leave the power of the keys and jurisdiction purely Spiritual to those to whom Christ hath lest it.   

Sect. I. Cap. IU.  
And now having dispatched the Circumstances out of my way, 
The Pope and Court of Rome did break the bonds of unity not we.  and laid down some Necessary grounds, I come directly to the Substance of his Assumption, and affirm, That neither the King of England, nor the Church of England, neither Convocation nor Parliament, did break his two Necessary Bonds of Christian Unity) or either of them, or any part of either of them. But that the Very Breakers and Violators of these Rules were the Pope and Court of Rome, They did break his Rule of Faith, by adding new points to the Necessary Doctrine of saving Truth, which were not the Legaceyes of Christ and his Apostles, nor delivered unto us by Universal and perpetual Tradition. The Pope and Court of Rome did break his second Rule of Unity in Discipline, by obtruding their excessive and intolerable usurpations upon the Christian world, and particularly upon the Church of England, as necessary Conditions of their Communion.  
It appeareth plainly by comparing that which hath been said with his position of the case, that after all his Brags of undeniable evidence and unquestionable certainty. he hath quite miss the question. We join with him in his rule of Faith, We oppose not St. Peter's Primacy of Order, and he himself dare not say that St. Peter had a larger, or more extended power then the rest of his Fellow Apostles. And though we cannot force our understandings to assent, that after the death of S. Peter, Linus, or Cletus, or Clemens, or Anacle●us, were Superiors to S. john, and had actual jurisdiction, over him, who had as large a commission immediately from Christ as S. Peter himself, and larger than any succeeding Roman Bishop ever had: Yet to show him how little we are concerned in it, and for his clearer conviction, we are willing to suppose that they were his Superiors, and give him leave to make all the advantage of his second Rule which he can in this cause.  
And here if I regarded not the satisfaction of myself and the Reader more than his opposition, I might withdraw my hand from the Table. But I am so great a Friend of Ingenuity, that I will for once discharge his Office, and show the World demonstratively and distinctly, what Branches of Papal power were cast out of England by Henry the eighth; upon which consideration the weight of the whole Controversy doth lie. For it is agreed between us, that if it appear by rigorous Evidence, that all those Branches of Papal power, which were renounced and cast out of England by Henry the eight were gross Vsurpattons, than his renouncing was no eriminall Breach, but a lawful self enfranchisement. And by undeniable consequence the Gild of schism resteth upon them who made the Usurpations, that is, the Pope and Court of Rome. I add further upon the equity of my second Ground; that although Henry the eight had cast out something more than be aught, yet if we hold not out more than we ought, and be ready to admit all which ought to be admitted by us, than we are innocent and free from the Gild of Schism and it resteth solely upon them, who either will have more than their due or nothing. Wheresoever the fault is, there the Gild of Schism is: If the fault be single, the Gild is single, 
What branches of Papal power were cast out of England by Henry the 6.  if the fault be mutual, the Gild is mutual.  
And for rigorous Evidence, There cannot possibly be any Evidence more demonstrative what Papal power was cast out of England, than the very Acts of Parliaments themselves, by which it was cast out. Let us view them all. The first Act made in the Reign of Henry the eight, which hath any referente to Rome, is the Act for holding Plurality of Benefices against the laws of the land by dispensation from the Court of Rome, making licenses for non Residence from the Court of Rome to be void, and the party who procureth such Licenses for Pluralityes or Nonresidence to forfeit twenty pounds, and to lose the profits of that Benefice which he holdeth by such dispensation▪ It were a pretty thing indeed, if the Church and Kingdom should make necessary laws, and the Pope might give them liberty to break them at his pleasure. 
23. Hen. 8. cap. 9   
The second Act is, that No person shall be cited out of t●e diocese where he dwelleth, except in certain cases. Which though it may seem to reflect upon the Court of Rome: yet I do not find that it is concerned in it, but the Arches, Audience, and other archiepiscopal Courts within the Realm.  
The third Act is merely declarative of the law of the land, as well the Common laws as the Statute laws, and grounded wholly upon them, as by the View of the Statute itself doth appear. So it casteth out no foreign power, but what the laws had cast out before. 
24. Hen. 8. ca 12.  The sum of it is this, That all Causes Matrimonial, Testamentary, or about Tithes etc. shall be heard and finally judged in England, by the proper judges Ecclesiastical and Civil respectively, and not elsewhere notwithstanding any foreign Inhibitions Appeals, Sentences, citations, suppensions, or Excommunications. And that if any English Subject procure a Process Inhibition Appeal, etc. From or to the Court of Rome, or execute them to the hindrance of any process here, he shall incur the Penalties ordained by the Statute of provision or praemunire, made in the sixteenth year of King Richard the second, against such as make provision to the See of Rome. 
25 Herald 8. c. 19  This law was enlarged afterwards to all causes of Ecclesiastical cognisance, and all appeals to Rome forbidden.  
The fourth Act is an Act for punishing of Heresy. Wherein there are three clauses that concern the Bishop of Rome. The First is this, 
25. Herald 8. c. 14.  And that there be many Heresies and pains and punishments for Heresies, Declared and ordained in and by the Canonical Sanctions, and by the Laws and Ordinations made by the Popes or Bishops of Rome and by their Authorities, for holding, doing, preaching of things contrary to the said Canonical Sanctions Laws and Ordinances, which be but humane, being mere repugnant and contrarious to the royal Prerogative, Regal jurisdiction, Laws Statutes and Ordinances of this Realm. The second Clause is that, No Licence be obtained of the Bishop of Rome to Preach in any part of this Realm, or to do any thing contrary to the Laws and Statutes of this Realm, or the King's Prerogative Royal. The third Clause followeth, That the Decrees of the Bishops of Rome, not confirmed by Holy Scriptures, were never commonly attested to be any Law of God or man within this Realm. And that it should not be deemed Heresy to speak or do contrary to the pretended power or Authority of the Bishop of Rome, made or given by Humane Laws and not by Scriptures; nor to speak or Act contrary to the Laws of the Bishop of Rome, being contrary to the Laws of this Realm.  
The Fifth Act is an Act concerning the Submission of the Clergy to the King's Majesty, 
25. H. 8. c. 19  The scope of it is this, that the Clergy shall not assemble in Convocation, nor make or proniulge any new Canons, without the King's Licence. Hitherto there is nothing new in point of Law. Then, that the King should have power to name and constitute, two and thirty Commissioners, sixteen of the Clergy, and other sixteen of the Peers and Parliament, to view the Ecclesiastical Laws of the Kingdom, and declare which were fit to be retained, 
27. H. 8. c. 15.  and which were to be abrogated. The same Law is confirmed and enlarged.  
The Sixth Law restraineth the payment of Tenths and First Fruits to the Bishop of Rome. And prescribeth how Archbishops, Bishops etc. are to be elected and consecrated within the Realm, without payment of any thing to Rome for Bulls and Pals etc. 
25. He: 8.   
The seventh law is, an Act of Exoneration of the King's subjects from exactions and impositions heretofore paid to the See of Rome, for Pensions, Peterpences, Licenses, Dispensations, Confirmations, faculties etc. and for having licenses and dispensations within the Realm, without further suing for the same; As being Usurpations contrary to the law of the land. 
26. H 8. cap. 1.   
The eighth Act is Concerning the King's Highness to be supreme Head of the Church of England (that is Political head) and to have Authority to redress all Errors, Heresies and Abuses in the same. That is to say, with external Coactive jurisdiction. We never gave our Kings the power of the Keys, or any part of either the Key of Order, or the Key of jurisdiction purely Spiritual: but only that Coactive power in the external Regiment of the Church, which their Predecessors had always enjoyed. 
26. H. 8. cap 3. 28. H. 8. ca 10.   
The Ninth Act is for the annexing Tenths and first fruits to the Crown, for the better supportation of the Burdens of the Commouwealth.  
The tenth Act is au Act extinguishing the Authority of the Bishop of Rome, or extirpating it out of this Realm. That is, Not the Bishop of Rome's Primacy of Order, Not his beginning of Unity, Not that respect which is dne to him as Bishop of an Apostolical See. If he have not these it is his own fault. This is not our quarrel. It is so far from it, that we do not envy him any just legacies of Christian Emperors or General Counsels. But that which our Ancestors did extinguish and endeavour to extirpate out of England, was the Pope's external Coactive power over the King's Subjects in foro contentioso, as we shall see by and by, when we come to state the quarrel rightly between us. 
35. Herald 8. cap. 5.   
After this Act there followed au eleventh Act made for corroborating of this last Act, to exclude the usurped power and jurisdiction of the Bishops of Rome. And both these Acts are backed with new Oaths, as those times were fruitful of Oaths, such as they were.  
The last Act of any moment, 
35. H. 8. cap 3.  was an Act of Ratification of the Kings Majestjes Style of Supreme head of the Church of England making it treason to attempt to deprive the King of it. But as well the eighth Act which gave the King that title of the Head of the Church, as this twelfth Act which makes it treason to attempt to deprive the King of it, are both repealed, and never were restored. So are likewise the tenth Act of extinguishing the Authority of the Bishop of Rome; and the eleventh act made for corroboration of that Act with both their Oaths included in them.  
All that hath been added since of moment which concerneth the Bishop of Rome is one Act, 
1. El. c. 1.  Restoring to the Crown the ancient jurisdiction over the State Ecclesiastical and Spiritual, and abolishing all foreign power repugnant to the same. Here is no power created in the Crown, but only an ancient jurisdiction restored. Here is no foreign power abolished, but only that which is repugnant to the ancient Laws of England and to the Prerogative Royal. In a word, here is no power ascribed to our Kings but merely Political and Coactive, to see that all their Subjects do their Duties in their several places. Coactive power is one of the Keys of the Kingdom of this world, it is none of the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. This might have been expressed in Words lessé subject to exception. But the case is clear. The Grand Act xxv. Hen. 8. cap. 12, The Injunctions of Queen Elizabeth, The Articles of our Chutch Art. 37. do all proclaim that this power is merely Political. Christ gave St. Peter a Commission to preach, to baptise, to bind and lose in the Court of Conscience: but where did he give him a Commission to give Licenses, to grant Faculties, to make Laws, to dispense with laws to receive appeals, to impose Tenths and First fruits in other men's Kingdoms, whether the right owner will or no? 
Luke. 12. 14.  Who gave him power to take other men's Subjects against their Wills to be his Officers and Apparitors? That is more power than Christ himself did challenge here upon Earth.  
And now Reader take a Stand and look about thee; See among all these Branches of Papal power which were cast out of England, if thou caused find either of St. Peter's Keys, or his Primacy of Order, or his Beginning of Unity, or anything which is purely Spiritual, that hath no further influence then merely the Court of Conscience. No: but on the other side behold a pack of the grossest Usurpations that ever were hatched, and all so late, that is was above a thousand years after the death of S. Peter, be fore any of his pretended Privileges did see the sun in England; 
21, Hen. 8. ca 13.  observe them one by one.  
The first is a power to dispense with English Subjects for holding Plurality of Benefices contrary to the Laws of England, And for non Residents contrary to the Statutes of the Realm. It had been much to have made Merchandise of his own Decrees: but to Dispense with the Laws of the Land, Non auderet haec facere Viduae mulieri. He durst not do so much to a poor widow woman, as he did to the Church and Kingdom of England, to dispense with their Laws at his pleasure. It is but vain for the Flower of our Kingdom to assemble and consult about healthful Laws: if a Foreigner have power to dispense with the breach of them as it seemeth good in his Eyes, They might as well sit them downquietly & fall to pilling of rushes,  
The second Branch of Papal power which was Excluded out of England, was the Pope's judiciary power. I do not mean in Controversies of Faith when he is in the Head of a council: 
Conc. Basil. Sess. 16 in revoc bullae 3.  Yet Eugeniur the fourth confesseth that in points of Faith the sentence of the council is rather to be attended then the sentence of the Pope. But I mean in points of meum and tuum, not only in some rare cases between Bishop and Bishop, which had been less intolerable, and had had more show of justice: but generally in all cases promiscuously; as if the whole nation wanted either discretion or Law to determine their own differences at home, 
24. Hen. 8 cap 12.  without the help of the Roman Courtier tosqueese their purses. It was not Henry the eighth, but the old Laws of England which gave them this blow against Appeals to Rome.  
The third Branch of papal power which was turned out of England by Henry the eighth was the Pope's Legislative power, especially in making new Heresies by his own Authority, and for his own Interest, prescribing the punishment, as if all the world were his Subjects. Mr. Sergeant may be pleased to inform himself better, that the Pope's Canons and decretals never had since the First Conversion of England the force or power of Laws in England, until they were received by the Nation, nor then any further than they were received.  
The fourth Branch is the Sovereign patronage of the English Church with all those rights and appurtenances which belong thereunto, as to convocate the clergy, and Dissolve their Assembly, To exempt their persons from secular judgement, To have the Disposition of Ecclesiastical Dignities and the Custodium of them in the Vacancy. But these things are so notorious, to all those who are acquainted with the Ecclesiastical Customs of England, that there can be no manner of Qnestion of it. The Convocation was always called and dissolved by the absolute and precise Mandate of the King to the Archbishop; Yea even when the Archbishop was the Pope's legate, and when he might have challenged, another right, if the Pope had had any pretence. The temporaltyes of the Bishoprics in the Vacancy were ever sèised into the hands of the King, until he granted out his Writ of Manum amoveas, or Oster la main: If ordinary Patrons did not present in due time to a benefice, it devolved to the Ordinary, and from him to the King, there it stayed, Nullum ●empus occurrit Regi.  
The fifth Privilege was the receiving of Tenths and First fruits, which were a late encroachment of the Bishop of Rome upon the Clergy, without any just ground, and upon that score were condemned in the Counsels of Constance and Basile, and now were seized into the King's hand towards the discharge of the Ecclesiastical Burdens of the Kingdom.  
The last perqnisire which the Pope lost was all the profits of his Court, by Bulls, and Palls, and Pensions, and Reservations, and Exemptions, and Licenses, and Dispensations, and Consirmations, and Pardons, and Indulgences, and an hundred other pecuniary Artifices practised in his Court at Rome, and in his Legantine Courts and Nunciatures abroad. But this abuse is so foul, that the Popes own selected Cardinals do cryshame upon it, as much as we, and lay-down this genera Rule, 
Conf. delct. Card.  That it is not lawful to make any gain by the exercise of the Keys, seeing we have the firm word of Christ, freely ye have received, freely give, etc. For as the use which now prevaileth doth disgrace the See of Rome, and disturbeth Christian people; so the contrary practice would bring much honour to this See, and marveilously edify the people.  
These are the real differences between the See of Rome and the Church and Kingdom of England concerning the papacy. 
The true difference about the Papacy.  all these altercations which we have about. Thou art Peter, and the Keys given to St. Peter, and Feed my Sheep, and I have prayed for thee; are but like to the tinkling of Cybeles Priests upon their Cymbals, on purpose to deaf the ears of the Spectators, and to conceal the Cries and ejulations of poor oppressed Christians. To reduce them into a little better Method than they lie in the Statutes.  
The main quaestious are or may be reduced to four heads. The first grand quaestion is concerning the Sovereignty of the English Church in respect of the external Regiment thereof. This hath four subordinate Branches.  
First who is the right Patron of the English Church under God, the King or the Pope? Secondly, who hath power to Convocate Synods of the King's subjects within England, The King or the Pope? Thirdly, whether the Pope have justly imposed new Oaths upon the Arch Bishops and Bishops? fourthly whether Tenths and first fruits in England be due to the See of Rome.  
The second question is concerning the Pope's legislative power. Whether the Canon law or the decretals have been anciently esteemed binding laws in England or aught to be so esteemed, except they be received by the English Nation, and metriculated among our laws.  
The third is concerning his judiciary power, Whether the Bishop of Rome can receive Appeals from England by the Ancient laws of that Land, and send for whom he pleaseth to Rome? 2. Whether Bulls and Excommunications from Rome can be lawfully executed in England, except the King give leave for the execution of them? 3. Whether the Pope can send Legates and set up Legantine Courts in England, by the Ancient laws of that Realm.  
The fourth Difference is concerning the pope's dispensative power, whether the Pope can dispense with the laws of England? 2. Whether we stand in need of his dispensations?  
In every one of these differences we maintain that the Bishop of Rome and the Court of Rome have been guilty of most gross Usurpations.   

Sect I. Cap V.  
To begin with the first. 
To whom thepatronage of the English Church doth of right belong.  If it were necessary to call in any foreign subsidiary Supplies for the further fortifying of the King of England's Sovereign Patronage under God of the Church within his Territories; I might find strong recruits from the Greek Emperors, to show that they always practised this power within their Dominions, to place Bishops in vacant Sees: and that the Contrary was hactenus inauditum, never heard of in S. Gregoryes days. 
Greg. lib. 4. Regist● indict. 13. cap 78.  To them I might add the French and German Emperors, who not only enjoyed the same privilege by ancient Custom, but to whom the Roman Bishops disclaimed it, with all their Clergy judges and Lawyers; Adrian the first to Charles the great, Anno 774. And Leo the eighth to the Emperor Otho, Anno 964. I might produce the precedents of the Spanish Monarches Conc. Tolet: 12. cap. 6. It were a most unreasonable thing that Sovereign Princes should be trusted with the Government of their people, and have their Bishops, who must participate in the Government, by informing the consciences of their Subjects, be obtruded on them by Strangers. I cannot omit the observation of a Learned Bishop, That, Quacunque ratione ad pontificatum pateret ingressus, nemo Apostolicae Cymbae gubernacula capessebat, ni prius Imperatoris authoritas in●ercessisset, 
Bell. de cler. lib. 1. ca 9  By what way soever the Election of the Pope was made (And Bellarmine, mentioneth seven changes in the manner of choosing the Pope.) Yet no man was ever admitted to the actual Government of the Apostolical See, without the Emperor's confirmation.  
But our case is strong enough without twisting any foreign precedents with it. William the conqueror, William Rufus, and Henry the first, did enjoy the right of placing in vacant Sees by the tradition of a Ring and of a Crosier staff, without ever seeking for Foreign approbation, or ordination, or confirmation, as their Predecessors Kings of England and Britain had done before them. Else it had been very strange, The Roman Ro●a will give decisive Sentence, for him to be Patron of a Church who first builded it and endowed it. But then after Eleven hundred years were e●●luxed, (a strange time to set up a divine right,) Gregory the seventh (otherwise called Pope Hildebrand) and after him Pope Calixtus did condemn all Investitures taken from a Lay hand, and prohibit the Arch Bishops to cousecrate any persons so invested, Praesens audivi in Romano Concilio prohiberi, 
apud Eadm●rum & Hoveden in Hen. 1.  saith Anselm, I heard it with mine own ears prohibited in the Roman Court. But what were their reasons? I believe, not overrigorous Demonstrations. The first was frequent suspicion of Simony; An unheard of piece of justice to take away an hereditary right for suspicion of a personal fault. The second and third reasons are contained in the letter of Adrian the fourth to Frederick the first, Apud Goldast: Ab his qui Dii sunt & filii excelsi omnes, homagium requi●is, Fidelitatem exigis, & manus eorum sacratas manibus tuis innectis, Thou requirest homage of those who are Gods, and all the Children of the most High, thou exactest an Oath of Fidelity and knittest their sacred hands with in thy hands. A strange presumption in a Sovereign Prince, if you mark it well, to hold his subjects hands within his Hands, whilst he was swearing his Allegiance; But the main exception was the Homage or Oath of Fidelity itself. And was it not high time think you to except against their swearing of Fidelity to their Native Prince, whom the Bishops of Rome intended to exempt from his jurisdiction, and to make them turn Subjects to themselves: as they did in a great part effect it very shortly after. Then was the time where of Platina speaks, that there was great Consultation about the Homage and Fealty and Oaths of Bishops, 
Plat. in Pasch. 2.  which in former times were sworn to lay men. Were they so indeed? Here is an ingenuous Confession of the Popes own Library Keeper.  
Indeed at the first whilst they were robbing the King of the jewels of his Crown, they preached up nothing but free Elections: 
Mat. Par. an 1229.  but after they had onte seized their prey, they changed their once forthwith to Dei & Apostolicae Sedis Graria, By the Grace of God and the Apostolic See: Or ex plenitudine Ecclefiasticae potestatis out of the Fullness of our Ecclesiastical power. And when this Bell had rung out a while, Egypt never a bounded more with Caterpillars, than our Native Country did with Provisions, and reservations, and Pensions, with all thenhellish arts of Sublimated Simony. Then our best dignities and Benefices were filled with Strangers (who could not speak an English word, nor did ever tread upon English ground,) daily more and more until these well chosen Pastors who knew how to shear their Flocks, though they did not know how to feed them, 
Mat. Par. m. Hen. 3. an. 1345.  received yearly out of the Kingdom more then the revenues of the crown. He were very simple who should think the Court of Rome, did not lick their own Fingers.  
There remaineth but one thing to be done, to stick the Gild of this intolerable Usurpation undeniably upon the See of Rome that is to s●ew that the Investiture of Bishops was the undoubted right of the Crown  
This is as clear as the Sun, both in our most Authentic Historiographers, and records if I had the means to producethens, and also in our ancient Laws published long since to the world in print, and these not enactive of new law, but declarative of the fundamental law of the land.  
First for our Histories Gervasius Dorobernensis relateth that Lanfrank desired of William the conqueror the Patronage of the Abbey of S. Austin: but the King answered. Se velle omnes baculos pastorales in manu tenere That he would keep all the Crosier staffs (that is the Investitures) in his own hand. The same is testified Anselm himself by one whose Authority cannot be doubted of, He (Anselm) after the manner and Example of his Predecessor was inducted according to the Custom of the Land, 
Eadm. lib 1. pag. 20.  and did Homage to the King (homo Regis factus est) as Lanfranke (his Predecessor in the Archbishopric of Canterbury) in his time had done. 
Eadm. lib. 1. pag. 18.  And the manner of his Investiture is related, how the Bishops pulled him, and haled him as it were by violence to the King's bedside (William Rufus) where he lay sick, and helped to thrust the Crosier staff by force into his hand. Yet all that time, though Anselm had many other Pretences, he had no exception against Investiture by a Lay hand: but shortly after it grew to such an height, (and Anselm was the chief Stickler in it) that William the Agent of King Henry the First protested openly to Pope Paschall, Whatsoever is said on this side or on that, 
Eadm. lib. 3. pag. 73.  I would have all men here present to know, that my Lord the King of England, will not suffer the loss of his Investitures for the loss of his Kingdom. To whom Pope Paschall answered as resolutely, but not so justly, Know thou I speak it before God; that Paschall the Pope will not suffer him to keep them without punishment, no not for the redemption of his head.  
Neither was this the case of Anselm or Lanfranke alone, but the common case of all Bishops in those days. Hear the confession of the same author, 
Ead. mer. in praefat. pag. 2.  To conclude, the very cause (of the difference between the King and Anselm) seemed a new thing (or innovation) to this our age, and unheard of to the English from the time that the Normans began to Reign, (that I say not sooner,) For from the time that William the Norman conquered that Land, no Bishop or Abbat was made before Anselm, who did not first do Homage to the King, and from his hand by the gift of a Crosier staff, receive the investiture to his Bishopric or Abbacy, except two Bishops of Rochester, who were Surrogates to the Arch Bishop of Canterbury and inducted by him by the King's Concession.  
Yea by his Favour, so did Anselm himself, Though he sought afterwards to wave it. And though he be loath to speak out (That I say not sooner) Yet he might have said sooner, and others do say sooner; as Ingulph the Abbot of Crowland in the time of the Conqueror, For many years passed there hath been no free Election of Prelates, 
malms●. de gest. Reg. l. 2. cap. 8.  but the King's Court did confer all dignities according to their pleasure, by a Ring and by a Crosier. And this Custom had held not only for Many years but for many Ages, king Edgar did grant to the monks of Glastenbury the free Election of their Abbot for ever: but he reserved to himself and to his Heirs the power to invest the Brother elected by the tradition of the Pastoral staff. Thus for our histories now for our Laws where of I shall need to cite but three.  
The First is the Statute or Assize or Memorial of Clarendon containing part of the ancient Liberties and Customs of the Realm, made in the General assembly of the Kingdom, King, Bishops, Peers, to which they gave both their oaths assertory for the truth of it, and Promissory for performance of it. The fourth Custom was this, that when an Arch Bishopric Bishopric Abbacy or Priory did fall void, the Election was to be made by such of the Principal Dignitaryes or Members of that respective Church which was to be filled as the king should call together for that purpose, with the king's consent, in the kings own Chapel. And there the person elected was to do his Homage and Fealty to the King as to his Liege Lord, The Pope had no part to Act, neither to collate, nor consent, nor confirm, nor Institute, nor induct, nor ordain.  
The Second Law is the Statute of Carlisle made in the time of Edward the First. 
the right to give Bishop-Ricks in England is the Kings  The sum of it is this, That the king is the Founder of all Bishoprics, and aught to have the Custody of them in the Vacancyes, and the right of Patronage to present to them. And that the Bishop of Rome usurping the Right of Patronage, giveth them to aliens. That this tendeth to the annullation of the State of holy Church, to the Disinheriting of Kings, and the Destruction of the Realm. And they ordained in full Parliament that this is an Oppression (that is as much as an entroachment or Usurpation) and should not be suffered.  
The third law was made in the 15th year of Edward the third, called the Statute of Provisors, wherein they affirm that Elections were First granted by the King's Progenitors upon a certain form or Condition to demand Licenfe of the King to choose, and after the Election to have his Royal Assent. Which Conditions not being kept, the thing ought by reason to resort to his First nature. And there fore conclude, that in case Reservation Collation or Provision be made by the Court of Rome of any Arch Bishopric etc. Our Sovereign Lord the King and his Heirs shall have and enjoy the Collations for the same time to the said Arch Bishoprics Bishoprics and other dignities Elective which be of his Aavowre, such as his Progenitors had before the free Election was granted. They tell the King plainly that the Right of the Crown of England and the Law of the Land is such, that the King is bound to make remedies and Laws, against such mischiefs. And they acknowledge that he is Advowée Paramont immediate of all Churches, prebend's, and other Benefices which are of the Advowry of holy Church. That is as much as Sovereign Patron of the Church; Where no Election can be made without the Kings Congé d' Estire or leave antecedent, nor stand good without his subsequent consent; it is all one as if the Crown did Collate.  
I come next to the second Branch of the First Question, 
the right to convocate English Synods is the Kings.  about the Patronage of the Church, Who hath power to Convocate and Dissolve Ecclesiastical Assemblies? and whether the Crown or the Pope have usurped one upon another in this particular? I cannot tell whether Henry the eighth or Paul the third, did mistake more about that Airy title of the head of the english church Henry the eight supposing that the right to convocate and dissolve Ecclesiastical Assemblies, and to receive Tenths and First fruits, did essentially follow this Title; And Paul the third declaring it to be Heretical and Schismatical. To be head of the English Church, is neither more nor less than our Laws and Histories, ancient and Modern, do every where ascribe to our English Kings. To be Governors of Christians. To be the Advocates of the Church, To be Patrons and Advowées Paramont of all Churches, To be Defenders of the Fa●h there Professed, And to use the Words of the Convocation itself, Ecclesiae Anglicanae Protectores singulares, Vnicos & Supremos Dominos. The same body may have several heads of several kinds upon Earth, as Political and Ecclesiastical; and than that which takes care of the Archirectonicall end, to see that every member do his Duty, is always Supreme; That is the Political head. This truth Cardinal Poole did see clearly enough, and reconcile the seeming difference by distinguishing between a Regal head and a Sacerdotal head, This truth the French Divines see well enough, 
Polus de Conc. pa. 70.  and doubt not to call their King the Terrene head of the Church of his Realm, without attributing to him any Sacerdotal right We had our Sacerdotal heads too in England, without seeking for them so far as Rome; As the Archbishop of Canterbury in the Reigns of our English Monarches, who of old was Nullius unquam Legati ditioni subjectus, Never subject to the jurisdiction of any Legate. When the Pope sent over Guy Archbishop of Vienna into England as his Legate throughout Britain for the Apostolical See, It was received with wonder and Admiration of all men. 
Eadmor. l. 3. p. 58.  Inauditum scilicet in Britannia cuncti scientes quemlibet hominum super se vices Apostolicas gerere, nisi solum Episcopum Cantuariae: All men did know that it was never heard in Britagne, that any Man whatsoever had Apostolical power over them, but only the Archbishop of Canterbury. And accordingly the new Legate did speed, so it followeth, Wherefore as he came so he returned, received as Legate by no man, nor having exercised any part of his Legantine power. 
Eadm. l. 5. p. 120.  This was the ground of that Letter of the English Bishops to the Pope. That the Church of Canterbury might not be deprived of its dignity in his times, and that he would neither Diminish it himself, nor suffer it to be diminished. As appeareth by the Pope's acknowledgement in his answer.  
But to come up close to the Difference, The Question is not whether ●he Bishop of Rome have Authority to call Synods. He is a Bishop, a Metropolitan, a Patriarch, a Prince in his own Dominions. As a Bishop he may Convocate his Diocese, As a Metropolitan his Province; As a Patriarch his Patriarchate, under the pain of Ecclesiastical Censure, more or less compulsory according to that Degree of Coactive power which hath been indulged to him in these Distinct Capacities by former Sovereigns: And as a Prince he may convocate his Subjects under Political pains. The more these two powers are united and complicated, the more terrible is the Censure. And therefore our kings would have their Bishops denounce spiritual pains also against the Violators of their great Charters. Spiritual paives are more heavy than Political, but Political most commonly are more speedy than Spiritual. And more certain; Spiritual pains do not follow an erring Key, but Political do.  
Neither will I dispute at present whether the Bishop of Rome by his reputed Primacy of Order or Beginning of Unity may lawfully call an Ecumenical or Occidental Council, by power purely Spiritual, which consists rather in Advise then in Mandates properly so called, or in Mandates of Courtesy not Coactive in the Exterior Court of the Church; considering the Division and Subdivision of the ancient Empire, and the present Distractions of Christendom, it seemeth not altogether in convenient. We see the Primitive Fathers did Assemble Synods and ●ake Canons, before there were any christian Emperors, but that was by aurhority merely spiritual; they had no coactive power to compel any man against his Will. The Uttermost they could do was to separate him from their Communion, and to leave him to the Coming or judgement of Christ. Let him be Anathema mar an atha.  
The true Controversy than is this, 
1. Cor. 16. 22.  Whether the Bishop of Rome by his Legates, have Coactive power in the exterior Court, to Convocate Synods of English Subjects in England, when he will, where he will, whom he will, without their Consents, and without the leave of the Sovereign Prince or King of England, The Case being thus stated determineth itself. Where should the Pope appoint a place of meeting in England without the Leave of the King of England? We see by often experience, that if the Pope have a desire to summon a Council in Italy, within the Dominions of another Sovereign Prince or Republic, although they be of his own Communion; he must First ask leave, and obtain leave, before he can tell how to do it; Or how should he pretend to any Coactive power in England without the Kings grant or leave, where the power of the Militia and all Coactive force is legally invested in the King. Thus for point of right.  
Now for matter of Fact, First I do utterly deny that any Bishop of Rome by his own Authority did Convocate any Synod in the British Island during the First eleven hundred years, Or preside in any by his Legates, Or confirm them by his Authority. If he be no table to produce so much as one instance to the Contrary, he may cry guilty to the Usurpation where of he is accused▪ and hold his peace forever.  
Secondly, I do confess that after eleven hundred years, The Bishops of Rome taking advantage of our civil combustions, and prostituting the reputation of the Apostolical See to their temporal ends, did by the leave of our Kings, (not otherwise,) sometimes call Synods in England, and preside in them. The first Synod held in England by any of the Pope's Legates was at London, in the year 1125. by joannes Cremensis, 
Gervasius Do●robornensis.  Which moved England into no small indignation, to see a thing till then unheard of in the Kingdom of England, A Priest sitting precedent upon an high throne above Arch Bishops, Bishops, bats etc. But remember my third ground or Consideration of the difference between affirmative and negative Precedents. All which this proveth, is that the King did give leave or connive at that time▪ But it doth not prove, it cannot prove a right to do the same at other times when the King contradicteth it.  
Further we ought to take notice that there is a great deal of difference, between an Ordinary Synod and an English Convocation. Although in truth our Convocations be Synods; So called from one word in the Kings writ to Summon them, Convocari facias. All the Clergy of the Realm were not present at an ordinary Synod: but all the whole Clergy, of the Kingdom were present at a Convocation, either in their Persons, or by their Proctors sufficiently authorised. Secondly, the absent Clergy had no such Obligation to the Acts of a Papal Synod, as they had to the Acts of a royal Convocation, sub Hypotheca bonorum omnium, under the Caution or Pledge of all their Goods and Estates.  
Lastly to drive the nail home, and to demonstrate clearly the Grossness of this Papal usurpation; it remaineth only to show that by the Ancient Laws of England the calling of Convocations or Synods, belonged properly to the King, not to the Bishop of Rome or his Legates. And first by reason. By the Laws of England more ancient than the Pope's intrusion, no Roman Legate could enter into the Kingdom without the King's leave, nor continue in it longer than he had his Licence, as we shall see hereafter, and therefore they could not convocate any Synods nor do any Synodical Act without the King's leave. Secondly by Records of the English Convocation itself, that the Convocations of the Clergy of the Realm of England are, always have been, and aught to be Assembled by the Kings Writ Anno 1532.  
Thirdly, by the Form of the Writ, which hath ever been the same in all succeeding Ages, constantly directed from the King to the English Arch Bishops for their distinct Provinces, The very Form speaks it English sufficiently; For certain difficult and urgent Businesses concerning the defence and security of the English Church, and the peace tranquillity, public good and defence of our Kingdom and Subjects, We command and require you by that Allegiance and Love which you owe ●o us, that you cause to be convocated with convenient speed in due manner all and singular Bishops of your Province, Deans and Priors of Cathedral Churches, etc. And the whole Clergy of your diocese and Province, to meet before you, etc. Another Writ did always issue from the King for the dissolution, We command you that you dissolve or cause to be dissolved this present Convocation, this very day, in due manner, without any delay, etc. Lastly by the concurring Testimonies of all our Historiographers, That all the space of time of eleven hundred years, wherein the Popes did neither call Counsels, nor Preside in them, nor Confirm them, and after unto the very Reformation; Our Kings did both call Counsels, and Preside in them, and Confirm them, and own their Laws: as I have showed him by the Laws of Ercombert, Ina, Withered, Alfred, Edwerd, Athelstan, Edmund, Edgar, Athelred, Canutus, and Edward the Confessor, in my Vindication. And particularly that Theodore Archbishop of Canterbury Presided in a Council, in the Presence of john the Pope's Legate. That King Edward Assembled a Synod and Confirmed the Acts of it as Decre●um Regis, The King's decree: That King Withered called a Council at Becancelde and Presided in it, and that the decrees of the Council issued in his name and by his Authority. Firmiter decernimus etc. in my Answer to the Bishop of Chalcedon. All this he pretendeth to have answered: but it is with deep silence. If he desire more Precedents and more witnesses, he may have a cloud of Authors upon holding up his Finger, to prove undeniably that King Henry did not innovate at all in challenging to himself the right to Convocate the Clergy and dissolve them, and confirm their Acts with in his own Dominions but followed the steps of his Ro●al Predecessors in all Ages, from the first planting of religion until his own days.  
And not only of his own Ancestors but his Neighbours. The Precedent of Charles the great is very conspicuous. To omit all my former Allegations in this behalf, 
Synod●● Francica 2. Tom. Conc. Pe●ri. Crab.  In the French Synod. I Charlemagne Duke and Prince of the Frankes by the Advise of the Servants of God and my Princes, have congregated the Bishops which are in my Kingdom with the Priests to a Synod, for the fear of Christ to Counsel me, how the Law of God and Ecclesiastical Religion may be recovered, which in the Days of forepast Princes is dissipated and fallen to ruin etc. And by the Counsel of my Clergy and princes we have ordained Bishops through out the Cities and constituted over them Archbishop Boniface the Pope's Legate, Qui est missus Sancti Petri. And●we have decreed every Year to congregate a Synod, that in our Presence the Canonical Decrees and the Rights of the Church may be restored, and Christian Religion Reform. And in the Synod of Arles held under the said Emperor, they begin the Synod with a solemn prayer for the Emperor. The Lord of all things establish in the Conservation of his Faith, our Most Serene and religious Lord the Emperor Charles, by whose Command we are here congregated. And they conclude the Synod with a submission to him, These things which we judged worthy to be amended, we have briefly noted and decreed them to be presented to our Lord the Emperor: beseeching his Clemency that if any thing be here wa●tin●, it may be supplied by his Prudence, if any thing be amiss it may be amended by his judgement, if any thing be reasonably taxed it may be perfected by his help, through the assistance of the Divine Clemency. 
Ibidem.  So the Council of Toures begin their Synodical Acts, That which was enjoined us by so great a Prince we accomplished in meeting at the time and place appointed, Where being congregated we noted such things by Chapters as needed to be amended according to the Canonical Rule, to be showed to our most serene Emperor. So they conclude their Acts, These things we have ventilated in our Assembly, but how our most pious Prince will be pleased to Dispose of them, we his faithful servants are ready at his beck and pleasure with a willing mind. 
Ibidem.  Lastly the Synod called Synodus Cabilonensis in the days of the said Emperor beginneth thus, Our Lord jesus Christ assisting us, and the most renowned Emperor Charles commanding us &c. We have noted out certain Chapters wherein reformation seemed necessary to us, which are hereafter inserted, to be presented to our said Lord the Emperor, and referred to his most sacred judgement, to be confirmed by his prudent examination of those things which we have reasonably decreed, and wherein we have been defective, to be supplied by his Wisdom. So they conclude, We have ventilated these things in our Assembly, but how it shall please our most pions Prince to dispose of them, we his faithful servants with a willing mind are ready at his beck and pleasure. One Egg is not liker to another, than these Synodical Representations are to our old English Customs, Yet these were Catholic times, when Kings convocated Synods of their own Subjects, and either confirmed or rejected their Acts, as they thought meet for the public good: and did give the Popes own Legate his power of presiding in them by their Constitutions, who joined with the rest in these Synodical Acts.  
I proceed to the third Branch of the Pope's first usurpation, 
Oath of allegiance due to Kings from Clerks not due to the Pope.  concerning the tying of English Prelates by Oath to a new Allegiance to the Pope. No man can serve two supreme Masters, where there is a possibility of clashing one with another. It is true one is but a Political Sovereign, and the other pretendeth but a Spiritual Monarchy: Yet if this supposed Spiritual Monarch, shall challenge either a direct power and jurisdiction over the Temporal in the exterior Court, as Pope Boniface did, Nos, nos imperia, regna, principa●us & quicquid habere mortales possunt, auferre & dare posse; We, even We have power to take away and give Empires Kingdom's Principalities, and what soever moral men are capable of: Or challenge an indirect power to dispose of all temporal things in order to spiritual good, (which is the opinion of Bellarmine and his party) Or last shall declare those things to be purely spiritual which are truly Political, as the Patronage of Churches and all Coactive power in the exterior Court of the Church. In all such cases the subject must desert the one or the other and either suffer justly as a Traitor to his Prince, or be subjected unjustly to the Censures of the Church, and be made as an Heathen or Publican. This is a sad case.  
But this is not all, If this poor subject shall be further persuaded, that his Spiritual Prince hath Authority to absolve him from all Sins, Laws, Oaths, knowing that his temporal Prince doth challenge no such extravagant power, what Emperor or King can have any assurance of the Fidelity of his own natural subjects? It is true, a Clerk may swear allegiance to his King, and Canonical obedient to his Bishop, but the cases are not like. No Canonical obedience either is or can be in consistent with true allegiance. The law full Canons oblige without an Oath. And all that Coactive power which a Bishop hath, is derived from the Prince and Subjected to the Prince.  
The question than is not whether a Pastor may enjoin his Flock to abstain from an unjust oath; An oath of allegiance to a natural Prince is justifiable both before God and man. Nor yet whether the Clergy have immunities, orought to enjoy immunities such as tender them more capable of serving God always the first Article in our Great Charter of England. Let the Church enjoy her Immunities. The question is not whether Clergy men transgressing of the Canons, aught to be tried by Canonical judges according to the Canons, especially in the first instance. For by the Law of England the Delinquent was always allowed the liberty to appeal to Caesar. But the question is whether the Pope by any Act or decree of his can acquit English Subjects, or prohibit them to do homage and swear Allegiance to their King, according to the Ancient Laws of the Realm, because they are Clergymen: And can Command them whether the King will or not, to take a new Oath never heard of or practised formerly; An Oath of Allegiance and Obedience to himself. So it is called expressly in the Edition of Gregory the thirteenth, Electo in Archiepiscopum sedes Apostolica Pallium non tradet, nisi prius praestet fidelitatis & Obedientiae juramentum, The Apostolical See will not deliver the Pall to an Archbishop elect, unless he first take a● Oath of Fidelity and Obedience.  
We have seen already how Henry the First was quietly seized and possessed of the Homage of his Prelates and their Oaths of and their Oaths of Fidelity; and his Predecessors before him. So we have heard Platina confessing, that before the Popedom of Paschalis the second, the Homage and feudal Oaths of Bishops were performed to Lay Men, that is to Kings, not Popes. Thus much Eadmerus and Nauclerus and William of Malmesbury and Hoveden and jorvalensis do all assure us. This agreeth sweetly not only with the Ancient Law of Feuds, 
Ridleys' View of Civil and Eccles. p. 64.  from whence they borrowed the name of Investitures: but also is confirmed by the decrees of ancient Counsels, as divers Toledan Counsels, and that of Aquisgrane, which who so desireth to see, may find them cited at large by King james in his Apology for the Oath of A legiance. 
Apol. pro juram. fid. ca 56.   
But these Oaths, land Homages, and Regal Investitures, as th●y were a Bond of Peace and Unity between the King and his Clergy, so they were a great Eyesore to the Bishops of Rome, because they crossed their main Design to make themselves the only Liege Lords of the ecclesiastics. As appeareth by that severe Check which Adrian the fourth gave Frederick the first, for Requiring Homage and Fealty of Bishops, who are Gods, and for holding their sacred hands in his hands. It stayed not here, That Homage and Oath of Fidelity which Gregory the seventh and Calixtus did rob the King of, their immediate Successor Paschalis the second did assume to himself, as we find by the unanimous consent of all Historiographers, and by the Canon of Paschalis himself recorded by Gregory the ninth, 
De Elect. & Elect. p●otest. ca 4.  Significasli etc. Thou signifiedst that Kings and the Peers of the Kingdom were moved with Admiration, because the Pall was offered to Thee by our Apocrisiaries, upon Condition to take that Oath which they brought Thee written from us. etc. The Admiration showeth the novelty of it. He confesseth there, that the Oath was not established by the Canon of any council, but by Papal Authority, and ●ustifieth it, For fear of further evil; That is, Apostaring from the Obedience due to the Apostolic See. The very Title doth assure us that it was an Oath of Fidelity and Obedience What manner of assurance can Sovereign Princes promise themselves of those Subjects, who have sworn Allegiance and Obedience to a foreign Prince.  
This Form at First was modest and moderate, bounding the Obedience of Arch-Bishops by the Rules of the holy Fathers, as we find in the old Roman Pontifical: but it was quickly changed from Regulas Sanctorum Patrum, to Regalia Sancti Petri, as we find in the new Pontifical. The Change in Letters was not great, but in the Sense abominable, Semel falsus semper praesumitur falsus. He who is apprehended in palpable forgery, is always deservedly suspected of forgery. With what Face can Mr. Serjeant tell us, that where the Method of immediate Tradition hath place, it is impossible for encroachments to gain Admittance, Where were see such Hocus Pocus tricks played before our eyes in their Pontifical. Bellarmine would persuade us that in St. Gregory the firsts time there was such an Oath of Obedience fully made to the Bishop of Rome. 
Greg. episi. l. 10. epist. 30. indic. 5.  But he doth either abuse himself, or seeketh grossly to abuse us First the Oath mentioned in Saint Gregory, was not an Oath of Obedience or allegiance, but promissio cujusdam Episcopi haeresim suam anathematiz any's, A promise of a Certain Bishop anathematising his haeresy, or an Oath of abjuration. Secondly, the Oath mentioned by Saint Gregory, was not imposed by his authority, but taken freely by the converted Bishop, to satisfy the world and to take away all suspicion of Hypocrisy, (ne non pura ment● seu simulate reversus existimer) dictated to his own Notary by the advice of his Clergy, Notario meo cum consensu presbyteror●m & Diaconorum atque Clericorum, scribendum dictavi. It was no Common Case of all Bishops, neither did it comprehend any such obligation to maintain the pretended royallties of S. Peter.  
And as they extended the matter of their Oath, so they did the Subject, about an hundred years after in the time of Gregory the niuth, 
De jure jurando cap. 4.  enlarging it from Arch-Bishops to all Prelates, Bishops, Abbats, Priors, And now what remains, but to cry up the Authority of the Canons above all Imperial Laws, Cedant Arma Togae, concedat Laurea Linguae: As Bellarmine doth, who denyeth the superiority of Princes above Clergymen, Principes Seculares respectu Clericorum non sunt Principes, 
Bell. li. de Clerca 28.  Princes are no Princes of Clerks, etc. Political laws have no coactive obligation over Clerks, but only directive, The Civil laws of Emperors must give place to the Canons of Popes. What new Monster is this, To receive Protection from the Laws of Princes, and to acknowledge no Subjection to the Laws of Princes? If Princes should put Church men out of their Protection, as Bellarmine exempts them from all Coactive Obligation to the Laws of Princes, They would quickly find their Error. It is an honour to Princes to preserve to Church men their old Immunities, but is it a Shame to Churchmen like Swine, to eat the Fruit and never look up to the Tree from whence it falleth.  
We have viewed the spoil Committed evidently, when, and by whom. He whose office it was to praeserve all others from spoil, could not preserve himself. It is a Rule in Law, Am omnia Spolia●us resti●ui debet, Before all other things he that is spoiled aught to be restored to his Right, And our old English Laws are Diametrally opposite to these new Papal Usurpations, in all the parts of them. First though the Kings and Kingdom of England, were always careful to preserve the Privileges of Holy Church. In all our Great Charters that was the first thing was taken Care for, yet not as due by Divine Law, 
25. E● 3. cap 4.  and much less by the Laws of the Pope, (which they never regarded,) but as Graces and Privileges granted by the Kings of England, and therefore they excluded from benefit of Clergy such sort of delinquents as they thought fit, 
6. H. 4. cap. 2.  as Proditores, Traitors against the Person of the King, Insidiatores viarum, such as lay in wait to do mischief upon the Highways; Depopulatores agrorum, such as depopulated the Land. And the most severe Laws that ever they made, are the Statutes of Praemunire and Provisors against Churchmen, for siding with the Bishop of Rome in his Usurpations, even to the forfeiture of their Goods and Lands, their Loss of their Liberty, and the putting them out of the King's Protection.  
Secondly, our Laws do acknowledge every where that Homage and allegiance is always due to the King from all Clergymen what soever. Edward the first enjoined all the Prelates upon their faith (or Allegiance) which they ought him. 
3. Ed. 1. ca 2.  They know no Fidelity or allegiance which is due to the Pope from any English man either Clergy man or Lay man; but the just contrary that they are bound by their allegiance to fight for the King against the Pope, for the redress of these and such like Usurpations. In the fourteenth Year of Richard the second, all the Spiritual Lords did answer unanimously, That if any Bishop of England, 
16. Ric. 2. c. 4.  were excommunicated by the Pope for having executed the sentences and commandments of the King, The same is against the King and his Crown, And they will and aught to be with the King in these Cases lawfully, and in all other Cases touching his Crown and his Regality, as they be bound in their Allegiance. Our Laws know no Oath of Allegiance or Fealty due to any person but the King, they make the King to be Advowee Paramont, 
25. Ed. 3.  Supreme Lord and Patron, Guardian, Protector, and Champion of th● Church of England.  
Lastly these Papal Oaths do necessarily suppose a Voyage to Rome, either to take the Oath there, or if the Oath was sent them into England, one Clause in the Oath●was, that they should come to Rome in person to receive the Pope's Commands within a prefixed time. But this is directly contrary to the Laws of England, which allow no Subject Clergiman or other, to go to Rome without the Kings Leave. Thus much both the Prelates and Peers of the Realm told Anselm when he had a mi●d to visit the Pope. Thus much we find attested by the General Assembly of the Kingdom in the Statute or Assize of Clarendon, where one of the Customs or Laws of the Kingdom is, That No Ecclesiastical person might depart out of the Kingdom, without the King's Licence. No, 
Mat. Par. Anno 1164. Hoveden.  not though he were expressly summoned by the Bishop of Rome. And at a Parliament held at Northampton in the Reign of Henry the third, it was enacted, that if any persons departed out of the Kingdom, un less they would return within a prefixed time, and answer it in the Court of our Lord the King, let them be outlawed. This was the unanimous complaint of the whole Kingdom to the Pope, 
Ma. Par. Anno 1945.  That the English were drawn out of the Realm by his authority, contrary to the Customs of the Kingdom. No Clergy man may go to Rome without the King's Licence, say the ancient Laws of the Realm: Every English Prelate's shall come to Rome, upon my command saith the Pope: What Oedipus can reconcile the English Laws and Papal mandates? Commonly good Laws proceed from evil manners, and abuses do ordinarily precede their Remedies. But by the Providence of our Ancestors our English Remedies were preexistent before their Usurpations. Non remittitur Pecca●um nisi restituatur ablatum, Until they restore those rights whereof they have robbed the King and Kingdom, We may pardon them, but they can hope for no forgiveness from God. I will conclude this point with an ancient Fundamental Law in the Britannic Island, 
Hect. Boet. Hist.  another●Prince ●Prince) professing Fidelity and obedience to any one (besides the King) Let him lose his head. 
Tenths and first fruits usurped by the Pope.   
I come now to the last Branch of the first Papal Usurpation Tenths and First fruits. If Christ be still crucified between two Thiefs, it is between an old overgrown Officer of the Roman Court, and a Sacrilegious Precisian. The one is so much for the Splendour of Religion, and the other for the Purity of Religion, that between them● th●y destroy Religion. Their Faces like Samsons Foxes lock contrary ways, but both of them have Firebrands at their tails: both of them prate of Heaven altogether, both of them have their hearts nailed to the Earth. On the one side, if it had not been for the Avaricious Practices of the Roman Court, the Papacy might have been a great advantage to the Christian world in point of Order and Unity, at least it had not been so intolerable a Burden; It is feared these will not suffer an Eugenius an Adrian or an Alexander to be both honest and long-lived. On the otherside these Counterfeit Zelots do but renew the Policy of the two old Sicilian Gluttons, to blow their Noses in the dishes, that they might devour the meat alone: that is cry down Church Revenues as Superstitious and Dangerous, because they gape after them themselves. If it were not for these two factions, we might hope to see a reconciliation. Self interest and self profit are both the procreating and conserving cause of Disunion.  
Who would Imagine that the large Patrimony of St. Peter should not content or suffice an old Bishop abundantly, without preying upon the poor Clergy for Tenths and First fruits, and God knows how many other ways? The Revennes of that See were infinite, yet the Bishops of ten complained of Want: God's blessing did not go along with these Ravenous Courses. So Pharohs lean Kine devoured the fat, yet were nothing the Fatter themselves. 
Ma. Par. An● 1229.  The first Tenth which the Pope had from the English Clergy was only a single Tenth of their movable Goods, not by way of Imposition, but as a Benevolence, or free gift out of Courtesy. But the Roman Bishops having once tasted the sweet, meant not to give over so Non missura cutem nisi plena cruoris ●irudo.  
The next step was to impose Tenths upon the Clergy, not in perpetuity or as a certain Revenue due to the Papacy, but for a fixed number of years, as a stock for the Defence of Christendom against the incursions of the Turk. About the same time First fruits began to be exacted, not generally but only of the Popes own Clerks, as a Gratuity, or in plain English as a handsome Cloak of Simony. But he that perfected the Work, and made both Tenths and First fruits a certain annual Revenue to the See of Rome, 
Plat. In Vita Bonifaci Noni.  was Boniface the ninth, or john the two and twentieth his Successor, so saith Platina, And with him almost all other writers do agree. This Boniface lived about the year fourteen hundred, whom Turselline maketh to have been the restorer of Papal Majesty, 
Turselin vita Vineislai.  whose prudence did transcend his Age, for he was but thirty years old. He was the Usurper, that took away from the Romans the free choice of their Magistrates. john the two and twentieth lived in the time of the Council of Constance, some thing above the fourteen hundreth year. It was he that called the Council, and was himself deposed by the Council for grievous Crimes, and the payment of First fruits abolished. For neither the payment of Tenths nor First fruits did agree with the palate of the Counsels of Constance and Basile, 
Concil: Const. edit. Petri Crab. p. 1182  Notwithstanding their gilded pretences.  
The Council of Constance decreed, that it was not lawful for the Bishop of Rome to impose any Indictions or Exactions upon the Church, or upon Ecclesiastical persons in the Nature of a Tenth or any other way. Which Decree was passed in the nineteenth Session, though it be related afterward. 
Ibidem pag. 1164. Sess. 12 16.  According to this Decree Pope Martin issued out his Mandate, We Command that the Laws which prohibit Tenths and other Burdens to be imposed by the Pope upon Churches and Ecclesiastical persons, be observed more Strictly. And the Council of Ba●ill Commandeth, 
Con. Basil. Ses. 21.  that as well in the Roman Court as elsewhere &c, Nothing be exacted for Tenths or Firstfruits etc.  
But for all this the Popes could not hold their Hands. 
Concil. Later. sub Leone 10. Ses. 12.  Leo the tenth made a new imposition for three years, Ad triennium proxime futurum, for the old ends. And it should seem that their mind was, that thence forward as the cause lasted, so should the imposition. But the German Nation were not of the same mind, who made this their nineteenth Grievance, for as much as concerneth Tenth, 
Cent. Gra. vain. cap. 19  which Ecclesiastical Prelates paid yearly to the Pope, which the German Princes some years since did consent unto, that they should be paid to the See of Rome for a certain time, upon Condition, that this money should be deposited at Rome as a stock, for defence against the Turk, and no otherwise. But the time is effluxed since, and the Princes have learned by Experience▪ that the moneys have not been employed against the Turks, but converted to other Uses etc. The Emperor Charles the fifth was not of the same mind, 
Apud Goldast an. 1522.  as appeareth by his Letter to Pope Adrian the sixth, where in he reciteth the same fraud, and requireth that the Tenths may be detained in Germany, for that Use for which they were first intended. Lastly Henry the eighth and the Church and Kingdom of England were not of that mind, nor intended to endure such an egregious cheat any longer, so extremely contrary to the Fundamental Laws of the Kingdom, 
24. Ed. cap 1.  and destructive to them. By which Laws the King himself (who only hath Legislative power in England,) may not compel his Subjects to pay any such Pensions, without the Good will and Assent of the Arch-Bishops, Bishops, Earls, Barons, Knights Burgesses and other Freemen of the land. Much less can a foreign Prince or Praelate whatsoever he be, impose any such payments by his own Authority. This is that which is so often Condemned in our Statutes of Provisors▪ Namely, the imposing Pensions and exporting the Treasure of the Realm. The Court of Rome is so far from any Pretence of Reparation, 
Traictes des droit & liberties de l' Eglise Gallicane & Pro Libertate Ecclesiae Gallicanae adversus Romanam Aulam Defensio Parisiensis Curiae.  that if their Predecessors were living, they were obliged to make restitution. These are all the Differences that are between us▪ concerning the Patronage of the Church of England.  
Yet now lest he should urge that these Laws alleged by me, are singular obsolete Laws, not Consonant to the Laws of other Christian Kingdoms, I will Parallel them with the Laws and Liberties of France, which he himself acknowledgeth to be a Catholic Country, as they are recorded in two Authentic Books, One of the Rights and Libertyes of the Gallican Church. The Other, The Defence of the Court of Paris for the Liberty of the Gallican Church against the Roman Court, both printed by Authority. First for the Patronage of the Church.  
The fourth Liberty is, The King hath power to Assemble or cause to be Assembled, Synods Provincial or national, and therein to treat of such things as concern Ecclesiastical Order.  
The seventh Liberty is, The Prelates of the French Church, although commanded by the Pope, for what cause so ever it be, may not depart out of the Kingdom without the King's Commandment a●d Licence.  
The eleventh Liberty is, The Pope cannot impose Pensions in France upon any Benefices having Cure of Souls, Nor upon any other, but according to the Canons etc.  
The Fourteenth Liberty is, Ecclesiastical persons may be Convented, judged, and sentenced before a secular judge for the First enormous Crime, or for lesser offences after a relapse.  
The fifteenth Liberty is, All the Prelatest of France are obliged to swear Fealty to the King, and to receive from him their Investitures for their Fees and Manors.  
The nineteenth Liberty is, Provisions, Reservations, expectative graces have no place in France.  
This is the brief sum of those Liberties which concern the Patronage of the Gallican Church, agreeing perfectly with our old English Customs. I shall show him the same perfect Harmony between their Church Liberties and our English Customs, the Assize of Clarendon, the Statutes of Provisors and Praemunire, through out. Either Mr. Sergeant must make the Gallican Church Schismatical, which he dare not do, and if I conjecture rightly hath no mind to do: or he must acknowledge our English Laws to be good Catholic Laws for Company.   

Sect. I. Cap. VI  
The next Usurpation which offereth itself to our Consideration, is the Pope's Legislative power over the Church and Kingdom of England, 
The pope hath no legislative power in England.  either in his person or by his Legates▪ For the clearer understanding whereof, the Reader in the first place may be pleased to take notice, that we receive the ancient Canons of the Catholic church, and honour them more than the Romanists themselves; as being selected ou● of the Canons of Primitive Counsels, before the Roman Bishops did challenge any plenitude of Legislative power in the Church. And especially of the first four General Counsels: of which King james said most truly, 
Omnibus Christ Monuarch. pag. 4. 1. Eli. c. 1.  that Publica Ordinum nostrorum Sanctione rec●pta sunt, They are received into our Laws. We acknowledge that just Canons of Counsels lawfully Congregated and lawfully proceeding, have power to bind the Conscience of Subjects as much as Political Laws, in themselves not from themselves as being humane laws, but from the Ordinance of God, who commandeth Obedience of Subjects to all sorts of Superiors. 
Conc▪ Constan Sess. 39  We receive the Canons of other Primitive Counsels, but not with the same degree of Reverence as we do the first four general Counsels. No more did S. Gregory of old, No more doth the Pope now in his solemn Profession of his Faith, at his election to the Papacy, according to the decree of the Council of Constance. That which restrained them, restraineth us. I am more troubled to think, how the Pope should take himself to be an Ecclesiastical Monarch, and yet take such a solemn Oath, In the Name of the Holy and undivided Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Ghost, to keep the Fait● of the Council of Chalcedon to the least Tittle. What the faith of the Fathers of Chalcedon was in this great Controversy about the Papacy, may appear by the six teenth Session, and the Acclamation of the Fathers to the Sentence of the judges, Haec justa Sententia, haec omnes dicimus, haec omnibus placent etc. This is a just Sentence, These things we all say, These things please us all &c  
Secondly, we acknowledge that Bishops. were always esteemed the proper judges of the Canons, both for composing of them and for executing of them: but with this caution, that to make them Laws the confirmation of the Prince was required; 
Constit▪ justin. cont. Antim▪ in Sin 5  and to give the Bishop a coactive power to execute them, the Princes grant or concession was needful. The former part of this caution is evident, in justinian's confirmation of the fifth General Synod. Haec pro communi Pace Ecclesiarum Sanctissimarum statuimus, haec sententiavimus, sequentes Sanctorum Patrū dogmata, etc. These things we ordain, these things we have sentenced, following the opinion of the Holy Fathers, etc. Quae Sacerdotio visa sunt, & ab Imperio confirmata: Which were approved by the Clergy, and confirmed by the Emperor. The second part of the caution is evident out of the Laws of William the conqueror, Qui decimam de●inuerit, 
Hoveden.  per justitiam Episcopi, & Regis si necesse fury, ad soluttionem arguatur, etc. Who shall detain his Tithe, Let him be convinced to pay it by the justice of the Bishop, and if it be needful of the King, For these things S. Austin preached and taught, and these things (that is, both Tithes and jurisdiction) were granted from the King, the Barons, and the People. So hitherto there is no difference between us, they acknowledge that the King is the Keeper of both the Tables: and we say that for the first Table the Bishops ought to be his Interpreters.  
Thirdly, as we question not the Pope's legislative or coactive power over his own subjects: so we submit to the judgement of the Catholic church, whether he ought to have a primacy of order as the successor of S. Peter, and as a consequent thereof, a right (if he would content himself with it) to summon Counsels, when and where there are no Christian Sovereigns to do it: and to join with other Bishops in making spiritual Laws or Canons such as the Apostles made, 
act. 15. 25.  and such as the primitive Bishops made before there were christian Emperors. But then those Canons are the Laws of the Church, not of the Pope: As those Canons in the Acts of the Apostles were the Laws of the Apostolical College, The Apostles and Elders and Brethren, not the Laws of S. Peter. Then their Laws have no Coactive Obligation to compel Christians in the outward Court of the Church against their Wills, or further than they are pleased to submit themselves. All exterior coactive power is from the Sovereign Prince, and therefore when and where Emperors and Kings are Christians, to them it properly belongeth to summon Counsels, and to confirm their Canons, thereby making them become laws. Because Sovereign Princes only have power to Licence and Command their Subjects to Assemble, to assign fit places for their Assembling, to protect them in their Assemblies, and to give a Coactive power to their Laws, without which they may do their best to drive away Wolves, and to oppose Heriticks; but it must be with such Arms as Christ had furnished them withal, that is. persuasions, Prayers, Tears, and at the most separating them from the Communion of the faithful, and leaving them to the judgement of Christ.  
The Controversy is then about new upstart Papal Laws either made at Rome (such are the decretals of Gregory the ninth, Boniface the eighth, Clement the fifth and succeeding Popes:) Or made in England by Papal Legates, as Otho and Othobone; Whether the Pope or his Legates, have power to make any such Laws to bind English Subjects, and compel them to obey them against their Wills, the King of England contradicting it. The first time that ever any Canon of the Bishop of Rome, or any legislative Legate of his, was attempted to be obtruded upon the King or Church of England, was eleven hundred years after Christ. The first Law was the Law against taking Investitures to Bishoprics from a Lay hand. And the first Legate that ever presided in an English Synod was johannes Cremensis, of both which I have spoken formerly. Observe Reader and be astonished, if thou hast so much faith to believe it, That the Pope should pretend to a legislative power over British and English Subjects by divine right, and yet never offer to put it in execution for above eleven hundred years.  
It remaineth now to prove evidently that Henry the eighth by his Statute made for that purpose, did not take away from the Bishop of Rome, any Privilege which he and his Predecessors had held by Inheritance from St. Peter, and been peaceably possessed of for fifteen hundred years. But on the contrary, that eleven hundred years after St. Peter was dead, the Bishops of Rome did first invade the right of the Crown of England, to make Laws for the external Regiment of the Church, which the Predecessors of Henry the eighth had enjoyed peaceably, until the days of William Rufus, nemine contradicente. And that the King's Laws were evermore acknowledged to be true Laws and obligatory to the English Subjects: but that the Pope's decrees were never esteemed to be binding Laws in England, except they were incorporated in to our Laws, by the King and Church or Kingdom of England. Whence it followeth by irrefragable consequence, that Henry the eighth was not the Schismatic in this particular: but the Pope and those that maintain him, or adhere to him in his Usurpations.  
First, for the King's right to make Laws, not only concerning the outward Regiment of the Church, but even concerning the Keys of Order and jurisdiction, so far as to oblige them who are trusted with that power by the Church, to do their duties, it is so evident to every one who hath but cast his Eyes upon our English Laws, that to bestow labour on proving it, were to bring Owls to Athens, Their Laws are extant made in all Ages, concerning faith and good Manners, Heresy, Holy Orders, the Word, the Sacraments, Bishops, Priests, Monks, the Privileges and Revenues of Holy Church, Marriages, Divorces, Simony, The Pope, his Sentemces, his oppressions and usurpations, Prohibitions, Appeals from eeclesiastical judges, and generally all things which are of Ecclesiastical Cognifance; and this in those times which are acknowledged by the Romanists themselves to have been Catholic. More than this, they inhibited the Popes own Legate to attempt to decree any thing contrary to the King's Crown and dignity, And if they approved the decrees of the Pope's Legates, 
Ma. Par. an 1237. Flor. wigorn. an 1227.  they confirmed them by their Royal Authority, and so incorporated them into the Body of the English Laws.  
Secondly, that the Pope's decrees never had the force of Laws in England without the Confirmation of the King, Witness the decrees of the Council of Lateran as they are commonly called: but it is as clear as the day to any one who readeth the eleventh, the six and fortieth, and the one and sixtieth Chapters, that they were not made by the Council of Lateran, but some time after; perhaps not by Innocent the third, but by some succeeding Pope. For the author of them doth distinguish himself expressly from the Council of Lateran, It was well provided in the Council of Lateran etc. But because that statute is not observed in many Churches, we confirming the foresaid statute do add etc. Again, It is known to have been prohibited in the council, of Lateran, etc. But we inhibiting the same moro strongly etc. How soever, they were the Pope's decrees, but never were received as Laws in England, as we see evidently by the third Chapter, That the Goods of Clergimen being convicted of Heresy be forfeited to the Church, That all Officers Secular and Ecclesiastical should take an Oath at their Admission, into their Office, to their power to purge their Territories from Heresy, That, if a Temporal Lord did neglect, being admonished by the Church, to purge his Lands from Heresy, he should be excommunicated, And if he contemned to satisfy within a year, the Pope should absolve his Subjects from their Allegiance. And by the three and fortieth Chapter, That no Ec●●●siasticall person be compelled to swear allegiance to a Lay man. And by the six and fortieth Chapter, that Ecclesiastical persons be free from taxes. We never had any such Laws, all Goods forfeited in that kind were ever confiscated to the King; We never had any such Oaths, Every one is to answer for himself; We know no such power in the Pope to absolve Subjects from their allegiance in our Law; With us, Clergymen did ever pay Subsidies and taxes as well as lay men. This is one Liberty which England hath, not to admit of the Pope's Laws unless they like them.  
A second Liberty of England is to reject the Pope's Laws in plain terms. 
20. H. 3. c. 9  The Pope made a Law for the Legitimation of Children borne afore Matrimony as well as those borne in Matrimony, The Bishops moved the Lords in Parliament, that they would give their consent to the Common Order of the Church: But all the Earls and Barons answered with one voice, that they would not change the Laws of the Realm, which hitherto had been used and approved. The Pope's legislation could not make a Law in England, without the concurrence of the three Orders of the Kingdom: and they liked their own old Laws better than the Pope's new Law.  
A Third Liberty of England, is to give a legislative Interpretation to the Pope's Laws, which the Pope never intended. The Bishop of Rome by a constitution made at the Council of Lions, excluded Bigamists (men twice Married) from the Privilege of Clergy, that is, that should Marry the second time de futuro: But the Parliament made an Act that the constitution should be understood on this wise, that whether they were Bigamists before the constitution, or after, they should not be delivered to the Prelates, but justice should be executed upon them as upon other Lay people. Ejus est Legem Interpretari cujus est condere. They that can give a Law a new sense, may abrogate it if they please.  
A fourth Liberty of England is to call the Pope's Law's Usurpations, Encroachments, Mischiefs, contrary to, and destructive of the Municipal Laws of the Realm, derogatory to the King's Regality: And to punish such of their Subjects as should pursue them, and obey them, with Imprisonment, with Confiscation of their Goods and Lands, with outlawing them, and putting them out of the King's Protection. Witness all those noble Laws of Provisors and Praemunire, Which we may truly call the Palladium of England, which preserved it from being swallowed up in that vast Gulf of the Roman Court; 
25. E. 1. 27. E. 3. 2. H. 4 cap. 3. & 4. 7. H. 4. cap 6.  made by Edward the first, Edward the third; Richard the second, and Henry the fourth. All those Collations, and Reservations, and Provisions, and Privileges, and Sentences, which are condemned in those Statutes▪ were all grounded upon the Popes●Lawes▪ and Bulls, and Decrees, which our Ancestors entertained as they deserved.  
Othobon the Pope's Legate in England; by the Command of Vrban the fifth made a Constitution for the endowment of Vicars in Appropriations, but it prevailed not: whereas our Kings by two Acts of Parliament did easily effect it. No Ecclesiastical Act is impossible to them who have a Legislative power: 
15. R. 2. cap 6. 4. H. 4 cap 12.  but many Ecclesiastical Acts were beyond the Sphere of the Pope's Activity in England. The King could make a spiritual Corporation; but the Pope could not. The King could exempt from the jurisdiction of the Ordinary; but the Pope could not. The King could Convert Seculars into Regulars; but the Pope could not. 
2. H. 4. cap 3. & 4.  The King could grant the Privilege of the Cistercians; but the Pope could not. The King could Appropriate Churches; but the Pope could not. Our Laws never acknowledged the Pope's plenitude of Ecclesiastical power, 
2. H. 4. c. 3 & 4.  which was the ground of his legislation. Euphemius objected to Gelasius, that the Bishops of Rome alone could not condemn Acatius, 
Gelas. epist. ad Faustum▪  ab uno non potuisset damnari. Gelasius answered, that he was condemned by the Council of Chalcedon, and that his Predecessor was but the Executor of an old Law, and not the Author of a new. This was all the ancient Bishops of Rome did challenge, to be Executors of Ecclesiastical Laws, and not single Law makers. I acknowledge that in his Epistle to the Bishops of Dardania, he attributeth much to the Bishops of Rome which a Council; but it is not in making new Laws or Canons, but in executing old, as in the case of Athanasius and chrysostom. The Privileges of the Abbey of Saint Austin in England granted by the Popes, 
Eadm▪ l. 4. Pa● 92.  were condemned as null, or of no validity, because they were not ratified by the King, and approved by the Peers. 
Eadm. l. 1. Pa● 6.  William the Conqueror would not suffer any man within his Dominions to receive the Pope for Apostolical Bishop, but by his command, nor to receive his letters by any means, ●nlesse they were first showed to him. It is likely this was in a time of Schism, when there were more Popes than one, but is showeth how the King did interest himself in the affairs of the Papacy, that it should have no further influence upon his subjects then he thought fit. He who would not suffer any man to receive the Pope's letters without his leave, would much less suffer them to receive the Pope's laws without leave. And in his prescript to Remigius Bishop of Lincolne●, know ye all Earls and Viscounts, that I ●ave judged, that the Episcopal (or Ecclesiastical) laws which have been of force until my time in the Kingdom of England, being not well constituted according to the precepts of the holy Canons, should be amended in the common assembly, and with the Counsel of my Arch-Bishops and the rest of the Bishops and Abbats, and all the Princes of my Kingdom. He needed not the help of any foreign Legislation, for amending Ecclesiastical Canons and the external regiment of the Church.  
Now let us see whether the Libertyes of France be the same with our English Privileges. The second Liberty is this, The Spiritual Authority and power of the Pope is not absolute in Franee (if it be not absolute than it is not singly Legislative,) but limited and restrained by the Canons and ancient Counsels of the Church. If it be limited by Ancient Canons, than it hath no power to abrogate Ancient Canons by new Canons. Their ancient Canons are their Ecclesiastical Laws, as well as ours, and those must be received in that Kingdom. They may be excellent Advisers without reception: but they are no Laws without public reception, Canons are no Canons either in England or in France, further than they are received.  
The third Liberty is, No Command whatsoever of the Pope (Papal decrees are his chief Commands) can free the French Clergy, from their Obligation to obey the Commands of their Sovereign. But if Papal power could abrogate the ancient Laws of France, it did free their Clergy, from their Obedience to their Sovereign Prince.  
The sixteenth Liberty is, The Courts of Parliament have power to declare null and void the Pope's Bulls, when they are found contrary to the Liberties of the French Church, or the Prerogative Royal.  
The twentieth Liberty, The Pope cannot exempt any Church, Monastery, or Ecclesiastical Body from the jurisdiction of their Ordinary, nor erect Bishoprics into Arch Bishoprics, nor unite them, nor divided them, without the King's licence. England and France as touching their Liberties walk hand in hand.  
To conclude, the Pope's legislative power in England was a gross Usurpation, and was suppressed before it was well form. But they are afraid of the old Rule, Break ice in one place and it will crack in more. If they did confess one Error, they should be suspected of many; If their Infallibility was lost, all were gone: And therefore they resolve to bear it out with head and shoulders, and in place of disclaiming a single power to make Ecclesiastical Laws, and to give them a coactive obligation in exterior Courts, they challenge a power to the Pope (some say ordinarily, others extraordinarily; some say directly other indirectly,) to make and abrogate Political Laws throughout Christendom, against the Will of Sovereign Princes. They who seem most moderate and Cautelous among them are bad enough, and deserve right well to have their works inserted into the Rebel's Catechism, 
Bell. de Rom. Pont. l. 5. c. 6.  If a Civil Law be hurtful to the Souls of Subjects and the Prince will not abrogate it, If another Civil Law be healthful to the Souls of the Subjects, and the Temporal Prince will not enact it; The Pope as a Spiritual Prince may abrogate the one, and establish the other. For Civil power is inferior, and consequently subject to Spiritual power. And, The Ecclesiastic Republic ought to be perfect and sufficient to attain its end: But the power to dispose of things Temporal is necessary to attain Spiritual ends. And, It is not lawful to choose an Infidel or Heretical Prince, but it is the same danger or damage to choose one who is no Christian, and to tolerate one who is no Christian, and the determination of the Question whether he be fit to be tolerated or not, belongs to the Pope. In good time. From these premises, we may well expect a necessary Collusion. Who ever see such a Rope of Sand, so incoherent to itself, and consisting of such Heterogeneous parts, composed altogether of mistakes? Surely a man may conclude that either nocte pinxit, The learned Author painted this Cypress tree in the night, or he hath a pitiful penurious Cause, that will afford no better proofs, But I hope the quarrel is dead or dying, and with it much of that Animosity which it helped to raise in the World. At least I must do my Adversaries in this cause that right, I find them not Guilty of it. Let it die and the memory of it be extinguished for ever and ever.   

Sect. I. Cap. VII.  
So I pass over from the Pope's Legislative power, 
The Pope hath no judiciary power in England.  to his judiciary power. Perhaps the Reader may expect to find something here of that great Controversy between Protestants and Papists; whether the Pope be the last, the highest, the infallible judge of Controversies of faith, with a Council or without a Council? For my part I do not find them so well agreed at home, who this judge is. All say it is the Church, but in Determining what Church it is, they differ as much as they and we. Some say it is the Essential Church by reception, whatsoever the Universal Church receiveth is infallibly true; Others ●ay it is the Representative Church, that is a General council; Others say it is the Virtual Church, that it is the Pope; Others say it is the Virtual Church and the Representative Church together, that is the Pope with a General Council; Lastly, others say it is the Pope with any council, either General, or patriarchal, or Provincial, or (I think) his College of Cardinals, may serve the turn.  
And concerning his infallibility all men confess, that the Pope may err in his judgement and in his Tenets as he is is a private Doctor, but not in his Definitions. Secondly the most men do acknowledge, that he may err in his Definitions, if he Define alone without some Council either general or Particular. Thirdly others go yet higher, that the Pope as Pope with a particular Council may Define erroneously or heretically, but not with a General Council. Lastly many of them which go along with others for the Pope's Infallibility, do it upon a Condition, Si maturus procedat, & consilium audiat aliorum Pastorum. If he proeeed maturely, and hear the Counsel of other Pastors. 
Bell. de Rom. Pont. lib. 4. Cap. 2.  Indeed Bellarmine saith that if any man should demand, Whether the Pope might err if he defined rashly? Without doubt they would all answer, that the Pope could not define rashly. But this is mere presumption without any colour of proof. I appeal to every rational man, of what communion soever he be, whether he who saith, The Pope cannot err if he proceed maturely upon due advice, do presume that the Pope cannot proceed immaturely or without due advice, or not rather that he may proceed rashly and without due advice. Otherwise the condition was vainly and superfluously added, frustra fit perplura quod fieri potest per pauciora.  
But the truth is, we have nothing concerning this Question, nor concerning any jurisdiction merely Spiritual in all the Statutes of Henry the eighth. They do all intend Coactive jurisdiction in the Exterior Court of the Church: Yet although nothing which he saith doth constrain me, I will observe my wont Ingenuity. We give the Supreme judicature of Controversies of Faith to a General Council, and the Supreme Power of Spiritual Censures, which are Coactive only in the Court of conscience: but if the Sovereign Prince shall approve or confirm the Acts of a general Council, than they have a Coactive power in the Exterior Court, both Political and Ecclesiastical. There is nothing that we long after more, than a general Council rightly called, rightly proceeding; or in defect of that a free Occidental Council, as General as may be. But then we would have the Bishops to renounce that Oath which hath been obtruded upon them, and the Council to declare it void. I. A. Bishop etc. will be faithful to St. Peter, and to the Holy Apostolical Church of Rome, and to our Lord Pope Alexander etc. I will be an assistant to retain and to defend the Roman Papacy and the Royalties of St. Peter. Where this Oath is esteemed Obligatory, I do not see how there can be a Free Council.  
But I retire myself to that which concerneth our present Question and the Laws of Henry the eight, concerning judiciary Power in the Exterior Court of the Church The First Branch of this third Usurpation s, 
The Pope can receive no appeals from England  Whether the Bishop of Rome can receive Appeals from England, and send for what English Subjects he pleaseth to Rome, without the King's leave? The First Precedent, and the only Precedent that we have of any Appeal out of England to Rome, for the First thousand years after Christ, was that of Wilfrid Archbishop of York; though to speak the truth, that was rather an Equitable than a Legal appeal to the Pope, as the only Bishop of an Apostolical Church in the west, and an honourable arbitrator, and a Faithful Depositary of the Apostolical Traditions, not as a Superior judge. For neither were the Adverse Parties summoned to Rome, nor any witnesses produced, both which ought to have been done in a Legal Appeal. But the success was so contrary to the Pope's Interest, and the Resolution of the King Church and Kingdom of England so unanimous, That they could not assent to the Pope's Legation, because it was against reason that a person twice condemned by the whole Council of the English, should be restored upon the Pope's Letter, that England was never troubled with any more appeals to Rome until after the Conquest. Neither Durst the Pope send any Bulls or Mandates then, but a plain Letter.  
The next Appellant was Anselm a Stranger (who knew not the liberties of England) in the Days of Henry the first, as successless as Wilfrid had been. 
Malm. de gestis Pont. Angl. l. 1.  Will you trust the Testimony of a King? (And I know not why a King should not be trusted for the Customs of his own Kingdom) Hear King Henry the First the Son of the Conqueror, It is a Custom of my Kingdom instituted by my Father, (instituted indeed, but not first instituted, for it was an old Saxon Custom) that no Pope be appealed to without the Licence of the King. Another Law of the same King was, 
leg. Hen 1. c. 31  By all means we discharge foreign judgements. If you will not trust the King, trust the whole Kingdom upon their Oaths, in the Days of Henry his Grandchild. The First English Custom recited in the Assize of Clarendon is this, 
Mat. Par. a▪ 1164.  That all Appeals in England must proceed regularly from the Archdeacon to the Bishop, from the Bishop, to the Arch Bishop, and if the Arch Bishop failed to do justice, the last complaint must be to the King to give order for redress. 
Eadmee●us l. 5. p. 113.  If we will not trust the King and Kingdom, Yet l●t us trust the Pope himself: thus Paschal the second writeth to our Henry the first, The Pope's Nuntioes and Letters do find no reception within thy jurisdiction, There are no Complaints from those parts, no Appeals are destined to the Apostolic See. 
Hove. den an. 119.  The Abbot of Thorney found this true by experience, who lay long in prison notwithstanding his Appeal to Rome. The Case is so plain, that I shall not cite one Authority more in it, but only one of our Statute Laws, made not only by the Assent (as is usnall) but upon the prayer, and grievous and clamorous Complaints of the Peers and Commons; 
xxvij. Edw. 3●  That because People are Drawn out of the Realm to answer things, the Cognisance whereof belongeth to the King's Courts, and the judgements of the King's Courts are impeached in another Court (the Court of Rome,) to the disinheriting of the king and his Crown, and the undoing ●and destruction of the Common Law of the Land; Therefore it is ordained, that whosoever shall draw a man out of the Realm in Plea, if he do not appear upon Summons and conform to the sentence of the king's Court, he shall forfeit Lands and Goods, be outlawed and imprisoned.  
Against such Fortifications grounded upon Prescription and Imperial Laws, the Canon of the Council of Sardica will make no great Battery. Take the Council of Sardica at the best, waving all exceptions, yet certainly it was no general Council; If it were, it had been one of the four first. If it had been a general Council itself, three succeeding Popes were much to blame, to Father the Canons of it upon the first General Council of Nice. The Canons of the Council of Sardica did not bind the Africans of old, much less bind us now. Secondly, the Canon of Sardica doth only give way to Appeals to Rome in cases between two Bishops: but the Court of Rome admitteth Appeals from inferior Clergy men, from Lay men, from all sorts of men, in all sorts of Causes that are of Ecclesiastical Cognisance. Thirdly, the Canon of Sardica is a mere permission, no precept, what may be done in discretion, not what ought to be done of necessity: it was proposed with a Si vobis placet, If it please you, and the ground of it is a Compliment, Let us honour the Memory of S. Peter. Fourthly, There is one great Circumstance in our Case, which varieth it quite from that proposed by Osius to the Sardican Fathers, that is, that our King and the Laws of the Realm do forbid Appeals to Rome. If there had been such an Imperial Law then, do we think that the Fathers of Sardica would have been so disloyal, or so simple to think to abrogate the Imperial Laws by their Canons, which are no Laws but by the Emperor's Confirmation? No, the Fathers of that Age did know their duty too well to their Emperor, and if they could have foreseen what avaricious practices, and what gross Oppressions, would have sprung in time from this little seed of their Indulgence, they would have abhominated them. Lastly, supposing the Sardican Council had been of more Authority, and the Canon thereof of more Extent than it was, and more peremptory, and that there had been no such intervening impediment why English Subjects could not make use of that Remedy: yet the Council of Sardica can give but humane right, And a contrary Prescription for a thousand years, is a sufficient Enfranchisement from all pretence of humane right.  
The second branch of this Usurpation, 
Of Papal Bulls and excommunicaetions.  is as clear as the former, concerning Papal Bulls and Excommunications; That by our ancient Laws they cannot be executed in England without the Kings Leave. In the Assize of Clarendon, this is found to be one of the ancient Customs of England, That none of the King's Servants or Tenants that held of him in Capite, 
Ma. Par. Anno 1164.  might be excommunicated, or their Lands interdicted, before the King was made acquainted. There was a severe Law made in the Reign of the same King, 
Hoved. in Hen. ● 2.  If any man be found bringing in the Pope's Letter or Mandate, Let him be apprehended, and let justice pass upon him without delay, as a Traitor to the King and Kingdom. It seemeth that the first and second Henry's, were no more propitious to Rome then Henry the eighth. Take one Statute more; it was enacted in full Parliament by Richard the second, 
26. Ric. 2. cap. 4.  that if any did procure or pursue any such Processes●or excommunications in the Court of Rome, as are there mentioned, that is, concerning presentations to benefices or dignities Ecclesiastical and they who bring them into the realm, or receive them, or execute them, shall be put out of the King's protection, their Lands Goods and Chattels be confiscated to the King, and their Bodies attached. They had the same respect for the Pope's Bulls as often as they did not like them, 
2. Hen. 4. c. 4.  in Henry the fourth's time, as we see by the Statute made against those, who brought or prosecuted the Pope's Bulls granted in favour of the Cystercians. 
Placit● An. 32 & 34. Edw. 1.  By the Law of England if any man denounced the Pope's Excommunication, without the assent of the King, he forfeited all his Goods, And it is recorded in particular, how the Kings writ issued out against the Bishops of London and Norwich, as being at the King's Mercy, 
Hoved. An. 1165. Ma. Par, an 1164.  because contrary to the Statute of Clarendon, by the Pope's Mandate, they had interdicted the Lands of Earl Hugh, and had published an Excommunication without the King's Licence, which the Pope had given out against him. All these Laws continued still in force, and were never repealed in England, neither before Henry the eighth began the reformation, nor since by Queen Mary, but have ever continued in full force until this day.  
Lastly for Legates and Legantine courts, there could be no Appeal in Eugland to any Legate or Nuncio without the King's leave: 
Or Papal Legates.  but all Appeals must be from the Archdeacon to the Bishop, from the Bishop to the Archbishop, from the Archbishop to the King, as we see expressly by the statute of Assize of Clarendon formerly cited. The Kings of England did ever deem it to be an unquestionable right of the Crown (as Eadmerus testifieth) to suffer none to excercise the Office of a Legate in England, 
Eadmerus l. 5. p. 125.  if the King himself did not Desire it of the Pope, upon some great quarrel that could not be so well Determined by the Archbishop of Canterbury and the other Bishops. Which Privilege was consented unto by Pope Calixius. 
Ibid.  By the Laws of England, if a Legate was admitted of Courtesy, 
Plat. An. 1. Herald 7.  he was to take his Oath to do nothing Derogatory to the King and his Crown. Henry the sixth by the counsel of Humphrey Duke of Gloster the Protector, protested against Pope Martin and his Legate, that they would not admit him contrary to the Laws and Libertyes of the Realm, 
Acts and Monuments.  and dissented from whatsoever he did. And when the Pope had recalled Cardinal Pools Commission of Legate for England, and was sending another Legate into England, Queen Marry being very tender of her Kinsman's Honour, for all her good affection to Rome, was yet mindful of this point of old English Law, to cause all the Seaports to be stopped, and all Letters Briefs and Bulls from Rome to be intercepted and brought to her. She knew this was an old English, not a new protestant Privilege: Neither would she ever admit the new Legate to appear as Legate in her presence.  
Now let us see how these old English Customs do agree with the French Liberties. The Pope cannot send a Legate a latere into France with power to Reform, judge, Collate, dispense, except it be upon the desire or with the Approbation of the most Christian King. Neither can the Legate execute his Charge, until he hath promised the King under his Oath upon his holy Orders, to make no longer use of the Legantine power in the King's Dominions than it pleaseth him, That he shall attempt nothing Contrary to the Liberties of the Gallicane Church. And it is lawful to Appeal from the Pope to a future Council.  
Another Liberty is, The Commissions and Bulls of Popes are to be viewed by the Court of Parliament, and registered, and published with such Cautions as that Court shall judge expedient.  
A third Liberty is, Papal Bulls Sentences Excommunications and the like, are not to be executed in France, without the King's command or Permission.  
Lastly, neither the King, nor his Realm, nor his Officers, can be Excommunicated nor Interdicted by the Pope.  
And as England and France, so all the seventeen Provinces, did enjoy the same Privileges, as appeareth by the Placaet of the Council of Brabant, dated at Bruxelles May 12, An. 1653. Wherein they declare, that it was notoriously true, that the subjects of those Provinces, of what State or Condition soever (that is the Clergy as well as the Laity) cannot be cited or convented out of the Land, no not before the Court of Rome itself. And that the Censures Excommunications▪ &c of that Court, might not be published or put in execution without the King's Approbation. It seemeth that if the Pope had any judiciary power of old, he must seek it nearer Home; People had no mind to go over the Alps to seek for Justice. And that Ordinance of Saint Cyprian, had place every where among our Ancestors, 
Cypr. ad Cornel. Ep. 55.  Seing it is decreed by all, and it is equal and just that every man's cause be heard there where the Crime was committed, and a Portion of the Flock is assigned to every Pastor, which he may rule and govern, and must render an account of his Actions to the Lord; It behoveth those whom we are over, not to run up and down, nor to knock Bishops who agree well, one● against another, by their Cunning and deceitful Rashness; but to plead their Cause there, where they may have both Accusers and Witnesses of their Crime. Unless the Authority of the African Bishops who have judged them already, seem less to a few desperate and lost persons etc. To say S. Cyprian meant not to condemn appeals, but only the bringing Causes out of afric to Rome in the first Instance, is a shift as desperate as that of those Fugitives. For St. Cyprian telleth us plainly that the cause was already judged, and sentence given in afric; The first Instance was past, and this Canon was made against Appeals out of Africa to Rome.   

Sect I. Cap VIII.  
So from his judiciary power I come to Papal dispensations, 
Of Papal dispensations.  the last of the grosser Usurpations of the Bishops of Rome. Where I have a large Field offered me to expatiate in, if I held it so pertinent to the present Controversy. The Pharisees did never dilate their Philacteries so much as the Roman Courtiers did their dispensative power. The Pope dispenseth with Oaths, with Vows, with Laws, he looseth from Sins, from Censures, from Punishments. Is not this a strange Key, which can unlock both sins, and censures, and Punishments, and Laws, and Oaths, and Vows, where there are so many and so different wards? It is two to one that it proveth not a right Key, but a Picklock. Their doctrine of Dispensations was foul enough, especially in such cases as concern the Law of God or Nature; as Oaths, Vows, Leagues, Marriages, Allegiance. For either they make the dispensation to be only Declarative; and then the Purchaser is merely Cheated, who pays his money for nothing: Or else they make all Contracts, Leagues, promises to be but Conditional, If the Pope approve them, which destroyeth all mutual trust and humane Society: Or thirdly they make the Pope's Dispensations, to be a taking away of the matter of the Vow or Oath, that is, the Promise; as if the Papal power could recall that which is past, or make that to be undone to day which was done yesterday, or that not to be promised which was promised: Or lastly they do dispense with the Law of God and Nature, as they do indeed, what soever they pretend to the Contrary, or all this kind of dispensations signify nothing.  
But the Practice of Dispensations was much more foul. Witness their Penitentiary Tax, wherein a man might see the Price of his Sin before hand, Their common Nundination of Pardons, Their absolving Subjects from their Oaths of Allegiance, Their losing of Princes from their solemn Leagues, of Married people from the Bonds of Matrimony, of cloisterers from their Vows of Celibate, of all sorts of persons from all Obligations Civil or sacred. And whereas no Dispensation ought to be granted without just cause, now there is no cause at all inquired after in the Court of Rome, but only the Price. 
Memorial. de sa Magestad. Catolica cap. 6.  This is that which the nine choice Cardinals laid so close to the conscience of Paul the third, How Sacred and Venerable the Authority of the Laws ought to be, how unlawful and pernicious it is to reap any gain from the exercise of the Keys. They inveigh sadly throughout against dispensations, and among other things that Simoniacal persons were not afraid at Rome, first to commit Simony, and presently to go buy an Absolution and so retain their Benefice. Bina Venena juvant. Two gross Simonies make a title at Rome, Thanks to the Pope's dispensations.  
But I must contract my discourse to those Dispensations which are intended in the Laws of Henry the eight, that is, the power to dispense with English Laws in the Exterior Court, Let him bindor lose inwardly whom he will, whether his Key err or not, we are not concerned. Secondly as he is a Prince in his own Territories, he that hath power to bind, hath power to lose, He that hath power to make Laws, hath power to dispense with his own Laws. Laws are made of Common Events. Those benign Circumstances which happen rarely, are left to the dispensative Grace of the Prince. Thirdly as he is a Bishop, whatsoever dispensative power the ancient Ecclesiastical Canons, or Edicts of Christian Emperors, give to the Bishop of Rome within those Territories which were subject to his jurisdiction by Humane right, we do not envy him; So he suffer us to enjoy our ancient Privileges and Immunities, freed from his encroachments and Usurpations. The Chief ground of the Ancient Ecclesiastical Canon was, Let the Old Customs prevail. A Possession or Prescription of eleven h●ndred years, is a good ward both in Law and Conscience against humane Right, and much more against a new pretence of divine right. For eleven hundred years our Kings and Bishops enjoyed the ●ole dispensative power, with all English Laws Civil and Ecclesiastical. In all which time he is not able to give one Instance of a Papal Dispensation in England, nor any shadow of it when the Church was form. Where the Bishops of Rome had no Legislative power, no judiciary power in the Exterior Court, by necessary consequence they could have no Dispensative power. The first reservation of any Case in England to the Censure and absolution of the Pope, is supposed to have been that of Albericus the Pope's Legate, in an English Synod in the year 1138. Neque quisquam ei praeter Romanum Pontificem, nisi mortis urgente periculo, modum paenitenttae finalis injungat. Let no man enjoin him the manner of final Penance but the Bishop of Rome, except in danger of death.  
But long before this, indeed from the beginning, 
Gervas' Dorber. pag 1648.  our own Bishops (as the most proper judges, who lived upon the place and see the nature of the Crime and the degree of the Delinquents Penitence or Impenitence,) did according to equity relax the rigour of Ecclesiastical Canons; as they did all over the Christian world, before the Court of Rome had usurped this gainful Monopoly of Dispensations. In the Laws of Alured alone, and in the conjoint Laws of Alured and Gu●thrun, we see how many sorts of Ecclesiastical crimes were dispensed withal by the sole authority of the King and Church of England, and satisfaction made at home to the King, and to the Church, and to the Party grieved, or the Poor, without any manner of reference at all to the Court of Rome, or to any foreign Dispensation. 
Spelm: Concil. pa. 364. etc.  The like we find in the the laws of some other Saxon Kings. There needed no other paenitentiary tax. Dunstan the Archbishop had Excommunicated a great Count, He made his Peace at Rome, and obtained the Popes Command for his restitution to the bosom of the Church. Dunstan answered, I will obey the Pope willingly when I see him penitent, But it is not God's will that he should lie in his sin free from Ecclesiastical discipline to insult over us. God forbid that I should relinquish the law of Christ for the cause of any mortal man. 
ibid. p. 481.  Roman dispensations were not in such Request in those days.  
The Church of England dispensed with those Nuns, who had fled to their Nunneries not for the love of religion, 
Lanf. Ep. 32.  but had taken the veil upon them merely for fear of the French; and this with the counseile of the King in the days of Lanfranke: and with Queen Maud the wife of Henry the First in the like case, 
Eadm. l. 3. p. 57  in the days of Anselm, without any suit to Rome for a foreign dispensation.  
There can be nothing more pernicious than where the sacred Name of Law, is prostituted to avaricious ends; Where Statutes or Canons are made like Pitfalls or Traps to catch the Subjects by their purses; where profitable faults are cherished for private Advantage by Mercenary judges, as beggars do their sores. The Roman Rota doth acknowledge such ordinary avaricious Dispensations, to be Odious things. The Delected Cardinals make them to be sacrilegious things, an unlawful selling of the power of the Keys. Commonly they are called Vulnera Legum, The wounds of the Laws: 
27. Edu. 3.  And our Statutes of Provisers do style them expressly the undoing and Destruction of the Common Law of the Land. The King, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and the whole Common wealth of England, complained of this abuse as a mighty Grievance; Of the frequent coming among them of this infamous Messenger the Pope's Non Obstante, 
Mat. Pa. an. 1245.  (that is his Dispensations) by which Oaths, Customs, Writings, Grants, Statutes, Rights, Privileges, were not only weakened but exinanited. Sometimes these Dispensative Bulls came to legal Trials, and were condemned. By the Law of the Land the Archbishop of Canterbury was Visitor of the University of Oxford, Boniface the eight by his Bull dispensed with this law, and exempted the University from the jurisdiction of the Archbishop. Whereupon there grew a Controversy, and the Bull was decreed void in Parliament by two succeeding Kings, 
Ex Arch. Tur. Londin. Ex Antiq. Acad. Cantab. pa. 91.  as being obtained to the Prejudice of the Crown, the weakening of the Laws and Customs of the Kingdom, (in favour of Lollards and heretics) and the probable Ruin of the said University.  
How the Liberties of France and the Laws and Customs of England do accord in condemning this Usurpation we have seen formerly, The power of the Pope is not absolute in France, but limited and restrained by the Canons of Ancient Counsels. If it be Limited and restrained by Ancient Canons, than it is not Paramount above the Canons, than it is not dispensative to give Non Obstantes to the Canons. And the Pope's Legate may not execute his Commission, before he have promised under his Oath upon his holy Orders, that he will not attempt any thing in the exercise of his Legantine power to the Prejudice of the Decrees of General Counsels, or the Privileges of the French Church. Then he must give no Dispensarions against the Canons, or Contrary to those Privileges.  
Thus we have viewed all the real differences between the Church of Rome and us, concerning Papal power which our Laws take notice of. There are some other pet●y Abuses which we complain of, but they may be all referred to one of these four heads, The Patronage of the Church of England, The Legislative, The Judicary, and Dispensative powers. Other differences are but the Opinions of particular Persons: But where no Law is there is no Transgression. We have seen evidently, that Henry the eighth did cast no Branch of Papal power out of England, but that which was diametrally repugnant to the Ancient Laws of the Land, made in the Reign of Henry the fourth, Richard the second, Edward the third, Edward the first, Henry the third, Henry the second; And these Laws ever of Force in England, never repealed, no not so much as in Queen mary's time, when all the Laws of Henry the eigh●h and Edward the sixth which concerned the Bishop of Rome were repealed. So that I profess clearly, I do not see what advantage Henry the eighth could make of his own Laws, which he might not have made of those ancient laws; except only a gaudy title of Head of the English Church, which survived him not long; and the Tenths and first fruits of the Clergy, which was so late an usurpation of the Pope, that it was not in the nature of things, when those ancient laws were made.  
And since I have mentioned the Novelty of that upstart Usurpation, give me leave to let you see how it was welcomed into England, whilst it was but yet hatching with the shell upon the Head of it, By a Law of Henry the fourth, about an Hundred years before Henry the eight, (so late this Mushroom began to sprout up.) 
6. Hen. 4. cap. 1.  For the grievous Complaints made to the King by his Commons in Parliament, of the horrible Mischiefs and Damnable Custom which is introduced of new in the Church of Rome, that none could have Provision of an Archbishopric, until he had compounded with the Pope's Chamber to pay great excessive sums of money, as well for the First fruits as other lesser Fees and Perquisites, &c▪ The King ordaineth in Parliament, as well to the Honour of God as to eschew the Damage of the Realm and peril of souls, That whosoever shall pay such sums should forfeit all they had, or as much as they might forfeit. Wherein are Henry the eights Laws more bitter against the Bishop of Rome, or more severe than this is?  
To conclude, we have seen the precise time when all these Weeds did first begin to peep out of the earth, The very first Introduction to the intended Pageant, was the spoiling of Christian Kings of the Patronage of the Church, which Bellarmine confesseth that they held, 
Apol. Card. Bell. contra praef. Monit. p. 66. Epist. Cler. Leod. Contrae Pasch. 2. in 2. tom. Conc.  Per non breve tempus, For a long time. A long time indeed, so long as there had been Christian Princes in the world, from Constantine the Great to Henry the fourth in the Empire; and yet longer with us in Britain, from King Lucius to Henry the First. The Clergy of Liege say, Nimium effluxit tempus quo hae● consuetudo incepit, & e. It is too long since this Custom (of swearing fidelity to Princes) did begin. And under this Custom Holy and Reverend Bishops have yielded up their souls to God, giving to Caesar that which was Caesar's, and to God that which was Gods. But them rose up Pope Hildebrand otherwise called Gregory the seventh, Fortissimus Ecclesiae Dei Vindex, The most undaunted Vindicator of the Church of God, 
Bell.  Who feared not to revoke and defend the old Holy Ecclesiastical Laws. 
ibid.  With this acordeth the Church of Liege, Hildehran. dus Papa Author hujus Novelli Schismatis, primus Levavit Sacerdotalem Lanceam contra Diadema Regni etc. Pope Hildebrand the author of this new Schism, first lift up his Episcopal Lance against the Royal diaden. And a little after, Si utriusque Legis totam Bibliothecam etc. If I turn over the whole Library of the old and new Law, and all the ancient Expositors thereof I shall not find an Example of this Apostolical precept, only Pope Hildebrand perfected the Sacred Canons, when he Commanded Maud the marchioness to subdue Henry the Emperor, for remission of her Sins.  
I take no exceptions to the person of Pope Hildebrand, others have done it sufficiently. Whether the Title of Antichrist was fastened upon him justly or injustly, I regard not. 
Bern. Ep. 56.  Yet it was in the time of this Hildebrand and Paschalis his Successor, that the Archbishop of Florence affirmed by revelation, (for he protested that he knew it most certainly) that Antichrist was to be revealed in that age. 
Bern. Serm. 65. in Cant.  And about this time the Waldenses, (of whom St. Bernard saith that if we inquire into their Faith, nothing was more Christian, if into their Conversation, nothing was more irreprehensible,) made their Secession from the Bishop of Rome. And not long after in the year 1120. published a Book to the world that the great Antichrist was come; That the present Governors of the Roman Church, 
joseph Mede de Numeris Danielis.  armed with both Powers Secular and Spiritual, who under the specious Name of the Spouse of Christ did oppose the right way of Salvation, were Antichrist.  
But I cannot but wonder what are those old holy Ecclesiastical Laws which Bellarmine mentioneth, 
Plat. in Vita Greg. 7.  Those Institutions of the Holy Fathers which Hildebrand himself professeth to follow, Sanctorum Patrum instituta sequen●es; Why do they mention what they are not able to produce, or pretend what they never can perform? Bellarmin hath named but one poor counterfeit Canon, without Antiquity, without Authority, without Use, without Truth. If Mr. Sergeant be able to help him with a recruit, it would come very seasonably: for without some such helps, his pretended Institutions of the Fathers will be condemned for his own Innovations, and for arrant Usurpations, 
Our Laws Meddle not with spiritual jurisdiction.  and the Gild of Schism will fall upon the Roman Court.   

Sect. I. Cap. IX.  
But I expect it should be objected, that besides these Statutes which concern the Patronage of the English Church, the Legislative, the judiciary, the Dispensative power of Popes, 
28. Hen. 8. cap. 10.  there are two other Statutes made by Henry the eighth; 
35. Hen. 8. cap. 5.  The one an Act for extinguishing the Authority of the Bishop of Rome, The other an Act for establishing the King's Succession in the Crown, wherein there is an Oath, that the Bishop of Rome ought not to have any jurisdiction or Authority in this Realm. And that it is declared in the 37. Article of our Church, that the Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this Kingdom of England. And in the Oath ordained by Queen Elisabeth That no Foreign Prelate hath or aught to have, any jurisdiction or Authority Ecclesiastical or Spiritual with in this Realm.  
I answer this Objection three ways. First as to the two Laws of Henry the eighth, They are both repealed long since by Queen Mary, and never were restored by any succeeding Prince, If there were any thing blame worthy in them let it die with them. I confess I approve not the Construing of one Oath for another, nor the swearing before hand to Statutes made or to be made. But, De mortuis nil nisi bonum.  
Secondly, I answer according to the equity a● my second ground, that although it were supposed that our Ancestors had over reached themselves and the truth in some expressions: yet that concerns not us at all, so long as we keep ourselves exactly to the Line and Level of Apostolical Tradition  
Thirdly and principally I answer, That our Ancestors meant the very same thing that we do. Our only difference is in the use of the Words Spiritual Authority or jurisdiction, Which we understand properly of jurisdiction purely Spiritual, which extendeth no further than the Court of Conscience. But by Spiritual Authority or jurisdiction, they did understand Ecclesiastical jurisdiction in the Exterior Court, which in truth is partly Spiritual partly Political; The interior habit which enableth an Ecclesiastical judge to Excommunicate, or Absolve, or degrade, is merely Spiritual, but the Exterior Coaction is Originally Political. So our Ancestors cast out external Ecclesiastical Coactive jurisdiction, The same do we: They did not take away from the Pope the power of the Keys, or jurisdiction purely Spiritual; No more do we.  
To clear the whole business, We must know, that in Bishops there is a threefold power; The first of Order, The second of Interiour jurisdiction, The third of Exterior jurisdiction. The first is referred to the Consecrating and Administering of the Sacraments, The second to the Regiment of Christians in the interior Court of Conscience, The third to the Regiment of Christian people in the Exterior Court of the Church. Concerning the two former, I know no Controversy between the Church of Rome and us but one, Whether the Bishop of Rome alone do derive his jurisdiction immediately from Christ, and all other Bishops do derive theirs mediately by him? Yet I confess this Controversy is but with a part of the Church of Rome: For many of them are of our mind, that all Bishops hold their jurisdiction immediately from Christ, as well as the Pope. And if it were otherwise, it were the grossest absurdity in the world. For thousands of Bishops in Christendom, do not at all derive their holy Orders from S. Peter, or any other Roman Bishop, either mediately, or immediately (especially in Asia and Africa,) but from the other Apostles. Must all these poor Bishops want the Key of jurisdiction, and be but half Bishops, to humour the Court of Rome? For they never had ordination, or Delegation, or Commission from Rome, either mediately or immediately, yet the Christian World hath evermore received them for true complete Bishops.  
But we have a Controversy with some others, who acknowledge no power of Governing in a Bishop but merely directive, neither more nor less than a Physician hath over his Patient, To advise him to abstain from some meats because they are hurtful to him; which advise the Patient, may either obey or reject without sin. But all the Schools have tied two Keys to the Church's Girdle, the Key of Order and the Key of jurisdiction, and I do not mean to rob my Mother of one of her Keys. 
1. Cor. 4. 21.  What will ye, shall I come unto you with a Rod? A rod is more than chiding. The principal Branch of this Rod is Excommunication (a Punishment more to be feared in the judgement of the Fathers than all earthly Pains,) The Spiritual Sword, Like the cutting of a member in the Body natural, Or the out lawing of a Subject in the body Political. It is a Question in the Schools, whether the Pastor's Sentence in binding and losing, be only Declarative, or also operative? As if such glorious promises, and so great solemnity where with this power was given, did imply a naked declaration; Keys are not given to signify the door is open or shut, but to open or shut it indeed. For my part I have always esteemed this Question, to be a mere Logomachy or Contention about words. They who make the Sentence only declarative in respect of man, do acknowledge it to be operative in respect of God. And they who make it to be Operative, make it to be Operative by the power of God, not of man. Whether the effect be attributed to the principal cause, or to the Instrument, being rightly understood, it is both ways true.  
But this will not excuse our Innovators, who have robbed the Church of one of her Keys, the Key of Spiritual jurisdiction. They are so jealous of the honour of God, that they destroy the beauty of the world, and jump over the backs of all second causes; and so they would make the holy Sacraments to be bare Sigus. As it was said of old, the sword of the Lord and of Gideon: so we may say now, 
1. cor. 1. 12.  the Key of Christ and his Pastor. St. Paul taxeth the Corinthians for saying I am of Paul, I am of Apollo, I am of Cephas, I am of Christ, What (saith he) is Christ divided? Is Christ divided from his Ministers? As it is an Error on the one hand to depend so much upon Paul, and Apollo, and Cephas, or any of them, as not to depend principally upon Christ: so it is an Error on the other hand so depend so upon Christ, as to neglect Paul Apollo and Cephas.  
In sum Christ made his Apostles not only Lawyers to give Advise, but judges to give Sentence. 
joh. 20. 21.  He gave them not only a Command but a Commission, As my Father sent me, so send I you, That is, I do constitute you my Deputies, and Surrogates, with as ample power and commission as my Father gave me; Bind, Lose, Remit, Retain, whatsoever you do on earth (Clave non errante, as long as your Key erreth not) I confirm in heaven. This is the Difference between the binding and losing of Christ, and the binding and losing of his Ministers; His power is Original, Primitive Sovereign, Imperial; Their power is derivative, Subordinate, Delegate, Ministerial. His Sentence is absolute ad Senten●iandum simplicit●er; Their Sentence is Conditional ad Sententiandum si. His Key never erreth, Their Key may err and many times doth err. To conclude the Apostles had a legislative power, 
Act. 15 28.  It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us, to lay upon you no greater Burden than these Necessary things. The Observation of Sunday, was an Apostolical precept, so is the Order of Deacons. They had a judiciary power, 
1. Tim. 5. 19  and their Tribunals; Against an Elder receive not an Accusation, but before two or three witnesses. They had a dispensative power, 
2. Cor. 2. 10.  To whom I forgave any thing for your sakes, forgave I it in the person of Christ? But all this is only in the interior Court of Conscience.  
The third power of Bishops, is the power of exterior jurisdiction in the Court of the Church, whereby men are compelled against their wills by Exterior Means. This the Apostles had not from Christ, 
joh. 18. 36. ●  nor their Successors from them, 
Luke 12. 14.  Neither did Christ ever assume any such power to himself in the world, My Kingdom is not of this world: And, Man who made me a judge or divider over you? Yet the greatest Controversies at this day in the Ecclesiastical Court are about Possessions, as Glebes, Tithes, Oblations, Portions, Legacies, Administrations, 
Bern. de Consid. lib. 1.  etc. And if it were not for these, the rest would not be so much valued, in Criminibus non in Possessionibus potestas vestra, quontam propter illa & non propter has accepistis Claves regni Caelorum, Saith, St. Bernard well to the Pope. Your power is in Crimes not in possessions, for those and not for these you received the Keys of the kingdom of Heaven. But suppose the Controversy to be about a Crime, Yet who can summon another man's Subjects to appear where they please, and imprison or punish them for not appearing without his leave? All that power which Ecclesiastical judges have of external Coaction, they owe it wholly either to the Submission of the parties, where the Magistrate is not Christian (as the jews at this day do undergo such Penitential Acts as are enjoined them by their Superiors; because the Reverence of them who obey, doth supply the defects of their power who Command) Or where the Magistrate is Christian, they owe it to his Gracious Concessions. Of which if any Man doubt, and desire to see how this Coactive power, how these external Privileges, did first come to be enjoyed by Ecclesiastical persons, Let him read over the first book of the Code, and the authentics or Novels of justinian. And for our English Church in Particular, let him consult with our best Historiographers. Eadmerus was one whom they need not suspect of partiality, as being Pope Vrbanes own Creature, and by his special appointment placed over Anselm, at his own entreaty, as a Superviser to exercise his Obedience. Whose injunctions had so much power over him, 
Malms de Gest. Pont. Angl. l. 1. pa. 120.  that if he placed him in his Bed, he would not only not rise without his Command, but not so much as turn himself from one side to another. Vt cum Cubili locasset, non solum sine praecepto ejus non surgere● sed nec latus inverteret. What marvel is it if the ancient Liberties of the English Church went first to wrack in Anselms Days, about the Year of our Lord 1000 (for he died Anno 1109) who being a Stranger Primate had so totally surrendered up his own reason to the Pope's Creature? 
Eadmer l. 4. p. 120.  Yet this Eadmerus saith of Lanfranke, His wisdom recovered other Customs, which the Kings of England by their Munificence, had granted to the Church of Canterbury in ancient times, and established them for ever by their sacred Decrees, that it might be most free in all things. All external exemption and Coaction is Political, and proceedeth originally from the Sovereign Prince.  
This is that which S. Paul teacheth us, The weapons of our warfare are not Carnal. The weapons of the Church are Spiritual, not worldly, not external: But Citations, and Compulsories, and Significavits, and Writs ad excommunicatum capiendum (which are not written by the Bishops own hand, yet at his beck,) and Apparitors, and jaolers, &c, Are Weapons of this world, and tend to external Coaction. For all which, the Church is beholden to the Civil power, to whom alone external Coaction doth properly and originally belong. 
Chrysostom. lib. 2. de Sac●rdotio.  This is that which St. chrysostom observed in his comparison between a Bishop and a Shepherd, It is not lawful to cure men, with so great Authority as the Shepherd cureth his Sheep. For it is free for the Shepherd, to bind his sheep, to drive them from their meat, to burn them, to cut them: But in the case of the Bishop, the Faculty of curing consisteth not in him who administereth the Physic, but in him that is sick, etc. St. Chrysost. speaketh of power purely Spiritual, which extendeth itself no further then the Court of conscience, where no man can be cured against his will: But Sovereign Princes have found it expedient, for the good both of the Church and of the Commonwealth, to strengthen the Bishop's hands, by imparting some of their Political authority to him; from whose gracious indulgence, all that external coactive power which Bishops have, doth proceed.  
Now to apply this to our purpose. Wheresoever our Laws do deny all Spiritual jurisdiction to the Pope in England, it is in that sense that we call the exterior Court of the Church, the Spiritual Court; They do not intend at all to deprive him of the power of the Keys, or of any Spiritual power that was bequeathed unto him by Christ or by his Apostles, when he is able to prove his Legacy. Yea even in relation to England itself, Our Parliaments never did pretend to any power to change or Abridge divine right. Thus much our very Proviso in the body of our Law doth testify, that it was no part of our meaning, to vary from the Articles of the Catholic Faith in any thing, 
25. Hen. 8. An Act for Exoneration.  Nor to vary from the Church of Christ in any other thing, declared by the holy Scripture and the word of God, necessary to salvation. If we have taken away any thing that is of divine right, it was retracted before it was done. Then followeth the true Scope of our Reformation, Only to make an Ordinance by Policies necessary and convenient, to repress Vice and for good Conservation of the Realm in peace, unity, and tranquillity, from ravine and spoil, ensuing much the ancient Customs of this Realm in that behalf. That which professed itself a Politic Ordinance doth not meddle with Spiritual Jurisdiction. If it had meddled with Spiritual jurisdiction at all, it had not ensued the ancient Customs of the Realm of England,  
In sum that external Papal power which we rejected and cast out, 
Eadmer l. 1. pag. 8.  and which only we cast out, is the same which the English Bishops advised A●selm to renounce, when it was attempted to be obtruded upon the Kingdom, But know, that all the Kingdom complaineth against thee, that thou endeavourest to take away from our Common Master the Flowers of his Imperial Crown, Whosoever takes away the Customs which pertain to his royal dignity, doth take away his Crown and Government together: for we prove that one cannot be decently had without the other. But we beseech the consider, and cast away thy Obedience to that urban, who cannot help the if the King be offended, nor hurt thee if the King be pacified. Shake of the yoke of Subjection, and freely, as it becomes an Archbishop of Canterbury, 
1. Eliz. ●.  in all thy Actions expect the King's pleasure and Commands. What soever power our Laws did divest the Pope of, they invested the King with it: but they never invested the King with any Spiritual power or jurisdiction, witness the Injunctions of Queen Elisabeth, witness the public Articles of our Church, witness the Professions of King james, witness all our Statutes themselves, wherein all the parts of Papal power are enumerated which are taken away; His Entroachments, his Usurpations, his Oaths, his Collations, Provisions, Pensions, Tenths, First fruits, Reservations, Palls, Unions, Commendams, Exemptions, Dispensations of all kinds, Confirmations, Licenses, Faculties, Suspensions, Appeals, and God knoweth how many pecuniary Artifices more: but of them all, there is not one that concerneth jurisdiction purely Spiritual, or which is an essential right of the power of the Keys; They are all Branches of the external Regiment of the Church, the greater part of them usurped from the Crown, sundry of them from Bishops, and some found out by the Popes themselves; as the payment for Palls, which was nothing in S. Gregoryes time, but a free gift or liberality or bounty, free from imposition and exaction.  
Lastly consider the grounds of all our grievances, expressed frequently in our Laws, and in other writers, The disinheriting of the Prince and Peers, The destruction and Anullation of the Laws and the Prerogative Royal, The Vexation of the King Liege people, The impoverishing of the Subjects, the draining the Kingdom of its treasure, The decay of Hospitality, The disservice of God, And filling the Churches of England with Foreigners, The excluding Temporal Kings and Princes out of their Dominions, The Subjecting of the Realm to spoil and ravine, gross Simoniacal contracts, Sacrilege, Grievous and intolerable oppressions and extortions, jurisdiction purely Spiritual doth neither disinherit the Prince nor the Peers, nor destroy and annul the Laws and Prerogative royal, nor vex the King's Liege people, nor impoverish the Subject, nor drain the Kingdom of its Treasures, nor fill the Churches with Foreigners, nor exclude Temporal Kings out of their Dominions, nor subject the Realm to spoil and Ravine. Authority purely spiritual is not guilty of the decay of Hospitality, or disservice of Almighty God, or Simony, or Sacrilege, or oppressions and extortions▪ No, No, it is the external regiment of the Church, by new Roman Laws and Mandates, by new Roman Sentences and judgements, by new Roman Pardons and dispensations, by new Roman Synods and Oaths of Fidelity, by new Roman Bishops and Clerks; It is your new Roman Tenths, and First fruits, and Provisions, and Reservations, and Pardons, and Indulgences, and the rest of those horrible mischiefs and damnable Customs, that are apparently guilty of all these evils. These Papal Innovations we have taken away indeed, and deservedly, having showed the express time and place and person, when and where and by whom, every one of them was first introduced into England. And we have restored to every Bird his own Feather, To the King his Political Supremacy, to the Peers their Patronages, to the Bishops that jurisdiction which was due to them, either by Divine right or Humane right. More than these Innovations we have taken nothing away, that▪ I know of. Or rather it is not we, nor Henry the eighth, who did take these Innovations away: but our Ancestors by their Laws, three, four, five hundred years old; so soon as they began to sprout out, or indeed before they were well form, as their Statutes yet extant do evidence to the world? But that filth which they swept out at the Fore door, the Roman Emissaryes brought in again at the back door. All our part or share of this work, was to confirm what our ancestors had done.  
I see no reason why I might not conclude my discourse upon this Subject, Mutatis Mutandis, with as much Confidence as Sanders did his visible Monarchy, Quisquis jurabit per Viventem in aeternum etc. Whosoever shall swear by him that liveth for ever, that the Church of England is not Schismatical, in respect of any Branches of Papal power, which she hath cast out at the Reformation, he shall not forswear himself. But Wagers and Oaths and Protestations, are commonly the Arguments of such as have got the wrong end of the staff. I will shut up this long Discourse concerning Henry the eighths' Reformation, with a short Apostrophe to my Countrymen of the Roman Communion in England.  
They have been ta●ght, that it is we who Apostate from the Faith of our Ancestors in this point of the Papacy, that it is we who renounce the Universal and perpetual Tradition of the Christian world. Whereas it is we who maintain ancient Apostolical Tradition against their upstart Innovations: whereas it is we who do propugne the Cause of our Ancestors against the Court of Rome. If our Ancestors were Catholic in this Cause, we cannot be Schismatical. Let them take heed lest whilst they fly o●t of a Panicall Fear from a supposed Schism, they do not plunge themselves over head and ears into real Schism. Let them choose, whether they will join with their Ancestors in this cause, 
15. Ri. 2. c. 4.  or with the Court of Rome, for with both they cannot join. If true English blood run in their veins, they cannot be long deliberating about that which their Ancestors, even all the Orders of the Kingdom, voted unanimously, That they would stand by their King, and maintain the rights of his Imperial Crown, against the Usurpations of the Roman Court.  
I have represented clearly to you the true Controversy, between the Church and Kingdom of England and the Court of Rome, concerning Papal power, not as it is stated by private writers, but in our English Laws, a glass that cannot deceive us, for so far as to let us see the right Difference. Let them quit these gross Usurpations; Why should they be more ashamed to restore our lust rights, than they were to plunder us of them? Let them distinguish between jurisdiction purely Spiritual, and jurisdiction in the exterior Court, which for the much greatest part of it is Political: between the power of the Sword, which be longeth to the Civil Sovereign, and not to the Church further than he hath been graciously pleased to communicate it: between that Obedience with proceedeth from fear of wrath, or from fear of God's Revenger to execute wrath (that is, the Sovereign Prince) and that Obedience which proceedeth merely from conscience; 
Ro. 13.  And then there is hope we may come to understand one another better.  
It is true, there are other Differences between us: but this is the main Difference, which giveth Denomination to the Parties, And when they come to press those Differences, they may come to have such another account as they have now. The wider the hole groweth in the middle of the Millstone, Men see clearer through it. Dies Diei eructat verbum & nox nocti indica●▪ Scientiam. The latter day is the Scholar of the former.   

Sect. I. Cap. X.  
BY this time we see that Mr. Sergeants great Dispatch will prove but a sleeveless Errand, 
An answer to Mr. Serjeant concerning immediate tradition and his two rules of Unity.  and that his First Movership in the Church, which he thought should have born down all before it, is an unsignificant expression, and altogether impertinent to the true Controversy between them and us. Unless as Dido did encompass the whole Circuit of Cathage, with a Bulls hide by her art: so he within his First Movership can comprehend the Patronage of the English Church, and the right to Convocate and dissolve and confirm English Synods, and to invalidate old Oaths and to impose new Oaths of Allegiance, and to receive Tenths and first fruits, and all Legislative Judiciary and dispensative power, Coactively in the exterior Court of the Church, over English Subjects. He cannot plead any Charter from England, we never made any such Grant: and although we had, yet considering how infinitely prejudicial it is to the Public Tranquillity of the Kingdom, we might and ought more advisedly to retract what we unadvisedly once resolved. And for Prescription, he is so far to seek, that there is a● clear Prescription of eleven hundred Years against him. So there is nothing remaineth for him to stick to, but his empty pretence of divine Right, which is more ridiculous than all the rest; to claim a divine right of such a Sovereign power, which doth branch itself into so many particulars, after eleven hundred Years, which for so many Ages had never been acknowledged, never practised in the English Church either in whole or in part.  
We cannot believe that the whole Christian world were Mole-eyed, or did sit in darkness for so many Centuries of years; until Pope Hildebrand, and Pope Paschalis, did start up like two new Lights with their Weapons in their hands, to thump Princes and knock them into a right Catholic belief.  
And indeed this Answer to his pretended demonstration, by a real demonstration where the true Controversy doth lie, and who are the true innovators, doth virtually answer whatsoever he hath said. So I might justly stop here and suspend my former pains, but that I have a great mind to try if I can find out one of those many Falsifications, and Contradictions, which he would make ns believe he hath espied in my discourse, if it be not the deception of his sight.  
First, 
Our faith not only probable.  he telleth us that our best Champions do grant, that our faith and its grounds are but probable. Surely he did write this between sleeping and waking, when he could not well distinguish between necessary points of faith, and indifferent Opinions concerning points of faith: Or to use Cajetans' expression, between determinare de fideformaliter, and determinare de eo quod est fidei Materialiter, Between points of faith necessary to be believed, And such Questions as do sometimes happen in things to be believed. As for Essentials of faith, the Pillars of the Earth are not founded more firmly, than our belief upon that undoubted Rule of Vincentius, Quicquid ubique semper & ab omnibus, etc. Whatsoever we believe as an Article of our faith, we have for it the Testimony and Approbation of the whole Christian World of all Ages, and therein the Church of Rome itself. But they have no such perpetual or Universal Tradition, for their twelve new Articles of Pope Pius. This Objection would have become me much better than him. Whatsoever we believe, they believe, and all the Christian World of all Places, and all Ages, doth now believe, and ever did believe; except condemned Heretics: But they endeavour to obtrude new Essentials of faith upon the Christian World, which have no such Perpetual, no such Universal Tradition. He that accuseth another, should have an eye to himself.  
Does not all the World see, that the Church of England stands now otherwise in order to the Church of Rome, than it did in Henry the sevenths days? He addeth further, that it is confessed that the Papal power in Ecclesiastical affairs▪ was cast out of England in Henry the eights days, I answer that there was no Mutation concerning faith, nor concerning any Legacy which Christ left to his Church, nor concerning the power of the Keys, or any jurisdiction purely Spiritual: but concerning coactive power in the exterior Court, concerning the Political or external Regiment of the Church, concerning the Patronage or civil Sovereignty over the Church of England, and the Legislative, judiciary, and Dispensative power of the Pope in England, over English Subjects; Which was no more than a Reinfranchisement of ourselves, from the upstart Usurpations of the Court of Rome. Of all which I have showed him expressly the first source, who began them, when, and where; before which he is not able to give one instance, of any such Practices attempted by the Bishop of Rome, and admitted by the Church of England.  
Who it is that looks asquint or awry upon the true case in Controversy between us, let the ingenuous Reader judge. I do not deny, nor ever did deny, but that there was a real separation made, yea made by us from their Usurpations: but I both did deny and do deny, that there was any Separation made by us from the Institution of Christ, or from the Principles of Christian Unity. This Separation was made long since by themselves, when they first introduced those novelties into the Church: and this Separation of theirs, from the pure Primitive Doctrine and Discipiine of the Church, doth acquit us, and render them guilty of the Schism before God and man.  
And therefore it is a vain and impertinent Allegation of him to tell us, that Governors may lawfully declare themselves publicly and solemnly, against the renouncers of their Authority, by Excommunication; unless he could show that the Bishop of Rome, hath such an absolute Sovereignty over us as he imagineth, extending itself to all those Acts which are in Controversy between us; And that in the exercise of the power of the Keys, they proceeded duly in a legal manner; And especially that they did not mistake their own Usurpation for the Institution of Christ, as we affirm and know they did.  
His whole Discourse about immediate Tradition, is a bundle of uncertain presumptions and vain Suppositions. First he supposeth that his Rule of so vast a multitude of Eye-witnesses of Visible things, is uniform and universal: but he is quite mistaken, the practi●e was different. The Papalms made Laws for their Usurpations, and the three Orders of the Kingdom of England made Laws against them. To whom in Probability should our Ancestors adhere, to their ow● Patriots, or to Strangers?  
Secondly he presumeth, that this uniform practice of his Ancestors was invariable, without any shadow of Change, but it was nothing less. First Investitures were in the Crown, and an Oath of Fidelity made to the King without any Scruple, even by Lanfranke and Anselm both Strangers; Afterwards the Investitures were decried as profane, and the Oath of Fidelity forbidden. Next a new Oath of Allegiance was devised of Clergimen to the Pope; First only for Archbishops, then for all Prelates; And this Oath at first was moderate, to observe the Rules of the holy Fathers, but shortly after more Tyrannous, to maintain the Royalties of Saint Peter, as their own Pontificals the old and the new do witness. First when they took away Investitures from the Crown, they were all for free Elections, but shortly after there was nothing to be heard of but Provisions, and such Simoniacal Arts. It is as easy to shape a Coat for the Moon, which alteretb every day, as to fit one constant Tradition to all these diversified Practices.  
Thirdly he supposeth, that all Parents' have judgement to understand aright what they see, and to penetrate into the secret Cabals and Practices of their times, And Ingenuity void of self Interest, to relate it rightly to their posterity: But herein also he will fall much short of his aim. Most Parents know what is acted publicly: but they know little what is done in their retiring Room. They know who is their Bishop: But who invested him, what Oaths he hath made, they are to seek. Most Parents see a Bishop fit in his Consistory: But by what authority he sits, whether merely by the power of the Keys, or partly by Concession of the Sovereign Prince, they know nothing. What do thy understand of any distinction between jurisdiction Spiritual and Ecclesiastical and Political? What Legends of Fopperies have been brought into the Church, by this Oral Tradition and the Credulity of Parents? And if all Parents had judgement to understand these things: Yet who shall secure us that they are void of Self interest? The Philosopher found that all the people forsook him, so soon as the market Bell began to ring.  
Lastly, he supposeth one constant succession of Truth, upon this Tenor or Method throughout many Ages. Why do we hear words, when we see deeds? We see them change daily; if they had not changed we had had no need to leave their Company. I have showed him when and where and by whom▪ all these changes wherein they and we differ concerning discipline, did come into the Church of England, at least all those which made the Breach between us. Immediate Oral Tradition, without any further Corroboration, is but a ●oy: Perpetual and Universal Tradition is an undeniable Evidence; or so Universal for time and place, That the Opposers have been censured in a manner universally for Heretics or Heterodox. In a chain, if one link be loose, or have a notorious Crack or Flaw, there is little trust to be reposed in it. Then what Credit is to be given to the pretended Chain of Tradition, where the eleven first Links are altogether divided from the rest, and fastened to the hand of the Sovereign Prince, beyond the Pope's reach? The four next Links are full of Cracks and Flaws, the Pope pulling at the one end, and the Prince holding at the other. The last Link of all, in England is put again into the hand of the Prince. Where so many Centuries are wanting, he is like but to maintain a poor Tradition. All this while I speak only of the external Regiment of the Church.  
But it is a wonder to me, why he of all others should so much magnify this Medium of Immediate Tradition, as an infallible Rule: For if I be not misinformed by some Friends, his Fathers chalked out another way to him by their Examples and Instructions, to hold himself in the Communion of the Church of England. But let that pass as not much material. If he reduce his Argument into any Form, he will quickly find that it halteth on both sides. Whatsoever we received by immediate Tradition from our Fathers, as the Legacy of Christ, is infallibly true; But we received those points of discipline wherein we differ, by immediate Tradition from our Fathers, as the Legacies of Christ. I deny both his Propositions, my reasons he will find formerly at large.  
I charged him for making two distinct Rules of Unity, whereas one would have served his Turn; that he might have more opportunity to shuffle the later Usurpations of the Popes, into the ancient discipline of the Church. For this I am lashed, as a man that cannot or will not write common sense, with a deal of such poor stuff not worth repeating. Cannot a man abandon his Religion unless he abandon his Civility also? He might remember that I had the honour to be a Doctor in the University, I think assoon as he was a Schoolboy in the Country. The first part of my Charge is confessed by himself, 
S. D. pa. 308  that his first Principle doth also include the truth of the second. If his second Principle be comprehended in the first, than it is no new distinct Principle, but either an inference, or a Tautology. But let him carve and mince his Principles into shreds if he please, rather than I will draw the Saw of Contention about the dream of a Shadow. To the second part of my Charge he answereth, 
S. D. pa. 484  that Neither I, nor any man else can instance of any Usurpation which did ever come in, either in Secular or Ecclesiastical Government, pretending that Tenor, or could come in so long as men adhered to that Method. Doth not he pretend to that Tenor? Or indeed taketh it for granted, and would make us believe they do adhere to that Method? If they do not, his demonstration doth not weigh a Grain. Yet I have showed him heaps of usurpations, more perhaps then he is desirous to see. Some men have made the Pope infallible, in point of faith formerly; but he is the first that ever made him uncapable of usurping, and I think will be the last; if he can persuade us with reason to be thus mad, he deserveth to have his head stroked, Go, Go Mr. Serjeant, Learn better, there are more ways of erring in point of Tradition, either real or supposed, 
S. D. pa. 484  than the Conspiracy of a World of Fathers, to tell a World of Children this Lie, that ten years ago they practised that which all the World besides knoweth they did not practise. Of all men Jugglers pretend most to perspicuous Evidence.  
I was contented to admit both his Rules in General, to try what use he could make of them against us: but whether I use sharpness or blandishments, he is still waspish; See Reader the right Protestant Method, 
S. D. pa. 485  which is to bring the Controversy from a Determinate State to Indetermination and Confusion; I fear he will rather dislike my being too distinct and particular. I have showed him expressly what Branches of Papal power we have altogether rejected, and what we are not unwilling to acknowledge, for peace sake, if that would content him; which is more than he hath done hitherto, as much as he will do, and I fear more than he dare do; They are not free from their Jealousies and Dissensions at home among themselves. Hitherto he hath not adventured to let us know, into what Church he himself resolveth his Faith; whether the Virtual Church, that is the Pope; or the Representative Church, that is a General Council; or the essential Church, that is the whole multitude of Believers, whose Approbation is their reception. And in this very Panragraph, he hath one passage that pointeth at the last opinion, 
S. D. p. 486.  making the consent of Catholic Fathers, immediately attesting that they received this Doctrine from their fore fathers, to be the infallible voice of the Church.  
At other times he maketh the extent of Papal power to be a matter of Indifferency, 
S. D.  wherein every Church is free to hold their own Opinions. In his Rule of Discipline, he maketh St. Peter only to be the Head, the Chief, the Prince of the Apostles, the First mover in the Church; all which in a right sense we approve, or do not oppose. Why doth he not acknowledge him to be a visible Monarch, an absolute Sovereign, invested with a plenitude of power, Sovereign, Legislative, judiciary, Dispensative? All the rest of the Apostles were First Movers in the Church, even as well as St. Peter (except only his Primacy of order which we allow▪) When your men come to answer this, they feign the Apostles were all equal in relation to Christian people, but not in relation to one another. Yes, even in Relation to themselves and one another; as hath been expressly declared long since, in the First General Council of Ephesus, not now to be contradicted by them; 
Epist. Conc. Ephes. ad Nest. To. 1. fol. 315. Edit. Pet. Crab.  Petrus & joannes aequalis sunt ad alterutrum dignitatis, Peter and john were of equal Dignity one towards another. A Primacy of Order may confist with an Equality of Dignity: but a Supremacy of power taketh away all Parity; Par in parem non habet potestatem. He is blind who doth no see in the History of the Acts of the Apostles, that the supremacy or Sovereignty of power, did not rest in the person of any one single Apostle, but in the Apostolical College.  
These indefinite Generalities he styleth Determinate points. It may be Determinate for the general truth: but Indeterminate for the particular manner, about which all the Controversy is. Yet he who never wanteth Demonstrative Arguments to prove what he listeth, will make it evident out of the very word Reformation, which we own and extol, that we have broken the Rule of Unity in Discipline. If he do he hath good luck, for by the same reason he may prove that all the Counsels of the Christian world▪ both General and Provincial, have broken the Bond of Unity, by owning and extolling the very word Reformation, both name and thing.  
As for the points of our Reformation, I do not refer him to Platonical Ideas, to be found in the Concave of the Moon: but to our Laws and Statutes, made by all the Orders of our Kingdom, Church and Commonwealth; not as they are wrested by the tongues and pens of our Adversaries, (Malice may be a good informer but a bad judge,) but as they are expounded by the Genuine and Orthodox Sons of the English Church; by our Princes, by our Synods, by our subsequent Parliaments, by our Theologians, by our most judicious Lawyers; in their Injunctions, in their Acts, in their Canons, in their writings; which he may meet with if he have such a mind in earnest, without any great search, in every Library or Stationer's shop, 
The creed is the old rule of faith. Our Articles no points of Faith. who falsifieth the Council of Ephesus.    

Sect I. Cap. XI.  
We do not suffer any man to reject the 39 Articles of the Church of England at his pleasure, yet neither do we look upon them as Essentials of saving Faith, or Legacies of Christ and of his Apostles: but in a mean, as pious Opinions fitted for the Preservation of Unity, neither do we oblige any man to believe them, but only not to contradict them. Yet neither is the Bishop got into a wood, nor leaveth his Reader in another, further from knowing what these Doctrines of saving Faith are, than he was at first. It is Mr. Sergeants Eyesight that fails him, through too much light, which maketh him mistake his ancient Creed for a wood, and the Articles for trees (persons who are goggle eyed seldom see well,) wherein all things necessary to be believed are comprehended. And although he inquire, 
S. D. pa. 487▪  Where are the processions of the Divine Persons, the Sacraments, Baptism of Children, the Government of the Church, the acknowledging there is such a thing as Scripture, to be be found in the creed? The Bishop is so far from being gravelled with s●ch doughty Questions, that he pitieth his simplicity, and returneth him for answer, that if he be not mop-eyed he may find the Procession of the Divine Persons in his Creed; that the Sacraments and Discipline of the Church are not to be reckoned among the Credenda or things to be believed, but among the Agenda or things to be acted; and the Holy Scripture is not a particular Doctrine or point of Faith, but the Rule wherein and whereby, all Fundamental Doctrines or points of Faith are comprehended and tried. So still his truth remaineth unshaken, that the Creed is a Summary of all particular points of saving faith, which are necessary to be believed.  
He proceedeth, 
S. D. pa. 487  that the Protestants have introduced into the Church since the Reformation no particular Form of Government, in stead of that they renounced. A grievous accusation! We had no need to introduce new forms, having preserved the old. They who do only weed a Garden, have no need to set new Plants. We have the Primitive Discipline of the Church, and neither want Spiritual, nor Ecclesiastical, nor Political Government. If you have any thing to say against it, cough out and spare not. And although we want such a free and general Communion with the Christian World as we could wish, and such as Bishops had one with another by their form Letters: Yet we have it in our desires; and that we have it not actually, it is principally your faults, who make your Usurpations to be Conditions of your Communion.  
And so I leave him declaiming against Libraries of Books filled with dead words, and thousands of Volumes scarcely to be examined in a man's whole life time, and quibbling about Forefathers, and inheriting, and Reformation, and Manasseh Ben Israel, and repeating the same things over and over again, as if no man did understand him who did not hear him say over the same things an hundred times.  
He Chargeth me that having granted that They and we do both maintain his Rule of Unity, 
p. 490.  yet I do immediately disgrace it by adding, that the Question is only who have changed that Doctrine or this Discipline, we or they? We by substraction or they by Addition? Which is as much as to say the pretended Rule is no Rule at all. When he and his Merry Stationer were set upon the Pin of making Contradictions, doubtless this was dubbed a famous Contradiction or an absurdity at least. As if a man might not hold one thing in his judgement, and pursue another in his Practice, profess one thing in words, and perform another in deeds, Video melior a proboque, Deterior a sequor; Medea see that which was right and approved it, but swerved altogether from it in her Practice, 
'tis 1. 18  They profess (saith St. Paul) that they know God, but in works they deny him. The Church of Rome professeth in words, to add nothing to the Legacies of Christ and his Apostles: but in their deeds they do add and add notoriously; as the Universality of the Roman Church, the doctrines of Purgatory, of Indulgences, of Worshipping of Images, and the rest of their new Essentials of faith, Extra quas nemo salvus esse potest (saith Pope Pius,) Without the belief of which no man can be saved. Then no man was saved for a thousand years after Christ. If there be the least Print of a Contradiction here, it is not in my discourse, but between their own Principles and their Practice. He taunteth me sufficiently for making the Apostles Creed, a summary of all things necessary to be believed by all Christians, calling it the wildest Topick that ever came from a rational head, and would gladly persuade us that it was only an Act of Prudence, to keep out heterogeneous persons in that present age, which was to be enlarged as often as new Heresies did arise. I pity the young man, who is no better acquainted with that Value, which both the ancient Fathers and his own Doctors set upon the Creed. Whilst he thinketh to confute me, 
Tert. de virgin. cap. 1. Clem. Rom. Ep. 1. ad frat. Dom.  he is ignorantly condemning all them. He condemneth the Fathers, who made it to be the one only immovable and irreformable Rule of Faith: The sum of the whole Catholic Faith: The Key of the Christian Faith: The Rule or Square of the Apostolical (Sermons after the Composition of it.) Wherein the Apostles of the Lord have collected into one breviary, 
Amb. Serm. 38.  all the points of the Catholic Faith which are diffused throughout the Scriptures. He condemneth his own Authors, 
Aust. Serm. 18. de Temp. Canis. Catech. Bellar. de Iust. l. 4. cap 2.  who acknowledge it to be a short comprehension or summary of all things to be believed. Bellarmine saith it containeth the sum of the Gospel: And more plainly, there is extant that most ancient Symbol which is called the Creed of the Apostles, because the Apostles composed it to this end, that it might be agreed among all men what was the sum of the whole Christian Faith. Whereof he produceth Witnesses, St. Ambrose, St. Hierom, 
De Iust. l. 1. cap. 9  St. Austin, Maximus; Adding that in the Creed (although briefly) is contained in a Summary the whole object of Faith. According to that of St. Austin, the Creed is a simple, 
Aust. i-bid.  short, full Comprehension of our Faith: that the simplicity may provide for the Rudeness of the Hearers; 
Aust. de Sacr. Euch. lib. 3. cap. 6. Conc. Trident. Ses. 3.  the shortness for their memory; and the fullness for their Doctrine. And elsewhere he telleth us, that all Catholics do confess, that it is the unwritten word of God. So there is more in the Creed than a mere Shiboleth, to distinguish an Ephraimite from a Gileadite. It is fundamentum firmum & unicum, not only a firm but an only Foundation. He asketh me whether ever Protestant did hold, there is nothing of Faith but the 12 Articles in that Creed? I do not know how I come to be obliged to answer him to so many impertinent Questions: but for once I will not refuse him. Protestants do know as well as himself, that there are many things of faith, which are necessary to be believed by some men at some times; as that St. Paul had a Cloak: but there is no Article or Point, absolutely necessary to Salvation to be believed, which is not comprehended within the 12 Articles of the Creed. And here, he serveth us up again his twice sodden Coleworts, that the Procession of the Holy Ghost, the Baptism of Infants, the Sacraments, the Scriptures, are not comprehended in the 12. Articles. I have but newly answered the very same Objection, and here Meander-like with a sudden turning he brings it in again: but I will not wrong the Reader so much, as to follow him in his Battologies. Only if he think the Creed was imperfect, until the word Filioque was added, he is much mistaken.  
But saith he, by the same Logic we may accuse the Church, at the time of the Nicene Council, for pressing the word Consubstantial. Pardon us good Sir, there is no Analogy between the Consubstantiality of the Son with the Father, and your upstart Doctrines of Indulgences and Image Worship. Indeed the word Consubstantial, was not in the Creed before the Nicene Council, but the thing was, and was deduced from the Creed. When the Apostles delivered the Creed to the Church, they did it by Oral Tradition: and this is that famous Tradition much mentioned in the Fathers, which you do altogether misapply to the justifying of your new patches▪ and when they delivered the Creed they delivered likewise the sense of the Creed, by the same Tradition: and it was the most proper work in the world, for those first Ecumenical Counsels, to search out and Determine by Tradition, the right sense of the Articles where in they were delivered by the Apostles. But for us now after fifteen or sixteen hundred years to inquire, not only into new senses of the old Articles, altogether unknown to the Ancients: but to find out new Articles, which have no relation to the old Articles, and all this by Tradition, is ridiculous. For whatsoever Tradition we have, we have from former Ages successively: and therefore if they had no Tradition for such an Article, or such a sense; we can have none,  
But such are all the twelve new Articles, added to the Creed by Pius the fourth; not only new senses of old Articles, which had been too much, but new Articles newly coined, which have no relation to the old Articles at all. Somethings are de Symbolo, contained in the Creed; somethings are contra Symbolum, against the Creed; and somethings praeter Symbolum, besides the Creed. First, for those things which are contained in the Creed, either in the Letter or in the sense, or may be deduced by good consequence from the Creed; as the Deity of Christ, his two Natures, the procession of the Holy Ghost: the Addition of these is properly no addition, but only an Explication; Yet such an Explication, none under a General Council can impose upon the Church. Secondly, such things▪ as are contrary to the Creed, are not only unlawful to be added to the Creed, but they are Heretical in themselves. Thirdly, for those things which are neither of the Creed, nor contained in the Creed, either explicitly, nor can be deduced by good Consequence from the Creed, and yet they are not contrary to the Creed, but Opinions or inferior truths, which may be believed or disbelieved, without any great danger of Heresy (of this nature are chose 12. points or Articles which Pius the fourth added to the Creed: To make these part of the Creed, and to oblige all Christians to believe them under pain of Damnation, as Pius the 4 ●h doth, without which there is no Salvation; is to change the Symbolical Apostolical Faith, and to add to the Legacy of Christ and his Apostles. Faith doth consist in indivisibili, and the Essential parts of it, cannot be contracted or enlarged.  
This is that which we Charge the Romanists withal, and which I see not how they will be able to shake of. Not the Explication of the old Articles of Faith, nor the prescribing of inferior truths as inferior truths to those who are under their jurisdiction, nor the obliging of their Subjects not to oppose their Determinations for peace and tranquilities sake: but the adding of new Articles or Essentials to the Creed, with the same Obligation that the old Apostolical Articles had, to be believed under pain of Damnation. Either all these 12 new Articles which were added to the Creed by Pius the Fourth, were implicitly or virtually comprehended in the 12 old Articles of the Apostles, and may be deduced from them by necessary Consequence, (the contrary where of is evident to all men): or it is apparel that Pius the 4. hath corrupted the Creed, and changed the Apostolical Faith.  
He might even as well let our 39 Articles alone for old acquaintance sake, (Dissuenda non dissecanda est amtcitia) as to bring them upon the Stage, and have nothing to say against them. Some of them are the very same that are contained in the Creed: some others of them are practical truths, which come not within the proper list of points or Articles to be believed: lastly, some of them are pious opinions or inferior truths, which are proposed by the Church of England to all her Sons, as not to be opposed; not as Essentials of Faith necessary to be believed by all Christians Necessitate medii, under pain of damnation. If he could charge us with this as we do them, he said something. The Nicene, Constantinopolitan, Ephesian, Chalcedonian, and Atbanasian Creeds, are but Explications of the Creed of the Apostles, and are still called the Apostles Creed. He will not for shame say that Pius the fourth's Creed, is only an Explication of the Apostles Creed, which hath 12. new distinct Articles, added at the Foot of the 12. old Articles of the Apostles.  
I do not say that there can be no new Heresy, but what is against some point found in the Creed. I know, that as there are some Errors heretical in their own nature, so there are other Errors which become heretical, merely by the Obstinacy of them who hold them. Yet if I had said so, I had said no more than some Fathers say, and sundry of their own Authors; Neque ulla unquam exit it heresis quae non hoc Symbolo damnart po●uerit: 
Catech. Trever.  There was never any Heresy which might not be condemned by this Creed. And so he may see clearly if he will, that it was no incomparable strain of weakness, nor self contradicting absurdity, nor nonsense, (as he is pleased to Vapour) to charge them with changing the Legacy of Christ and his Apostles, by the Addition of new Essentials of Faith.  
I will conclude this point with the excellent judgement of Vincentius Lirinensis; Peradventure some man will say shall there be no growth of the Religion of Christ in the Church? Yes, very much; but so that it be a growth of Faith not a change. Let it increase; but only in the same kind, the same Articles, the same sense, the same Sentences. Let the Religion of souls imitate the manner of bodies etc. The members of infants are little, young men's great, yet they are the same, Children have as many joints as men etc. But if any thing be added to, or taken from the number of the members, the body must of necessity perish, or become monstrous, or be enfeebled: so it is meet that Christian Religion do follow these Laws of Proficiency etc.  
But now he brings a rapping Accusation against me, charging me with four falsifications in one sentence: 
pag. 495.  and then concludes triumphantly, Go thy ways brave Bishop, If the next Synod of Protestants, do not Canonize thee for an Interpreter of Counsels, they are false to their best interests. Who so bold as blind Bayard? Here is a great deal more Cry than Wool. But let us examine these great falsifications, my words were these. The Question is only who have changed that doctrine or this Discipline, we or they? we by Substraction, or they by Addition? The Case is clear, The Apostles contracted this Doctrine into a Summary, that is the Creed, the Primitive Fathers expounded it where it did stand in need of clearer Explication. Then follow the words which he excepteth against, The General Council of Ephesus did forbid all men to exact any more of a Christian at his Baptismal Profession. It is strange indeed to find four falsifications in two short lines: but to find four falsifications where there is not one syllable cited, is altogether impossible. I relate as of myself what the Council of Ephesus did; I cite no Authority at all, neither in the ●●ext nor in the Margin; nor put one word into a different Character. His pen is so accustomed to overreach beyond all aim, that he cannot help it; A Scotch man would take the Liberty to tell him that he is very good Company.  
The truth is, I did forbear to cite it, because I had cited it formerly in my answer to Monsieur Militier, where he might have found it if he had pleased; 
Conc. Eph. pa. 2. Act. 6. c. 7.  That it should be lawful for no man to publish or compose, another Faith (or Creed) then that which was defined by the Nicene Council, And that whosoever should dare to compose, or offer any such to any persons willing to b● conver●ed from Paganism, judaism, or Heresy, if they should be Bishops or Clerks should be deposed, if Laymen Anathematised. If he can find any Falsification in this, let him not spare it: but to find four falsifications, where not one word was cited, was impossible. In a word, to deal plainly with him, his f●ur pretended Falsifications are a silly senseless ridiculous Cavil.  
To clear this, it is necessary to consider that this word Faith in holy Scripture Counsels and Fathers, is taken ordinarily for the Ob●ect of Faith, or for the sum of things to be believed, that is, the Creed: and so it is taken in this very place of the Council of Ephesus, and cannot be taken otherwise; for it is undeniable, that that Faith which was defined, published, and composed by the Nicene Fathers, was the Nicene Creed, or the Creed of the Apostles explicated by the Nicene Fathers. Secondly, we must consider that the Catholic Church of Christ, from the very Infancy of Christian Religion, did never admit any person to Baptism in an ordinary way, but it required of them a free profession of the Creed or Symbolical Faith, either by themselves, or by their sureties if they were Infants: and so did baptise them in that Faith▪ This was the practice of the Apostolical Church; this was that good profession which Timothy made before many witnesses; 
1. Timon 6. 12.  This was the universal practice in the Primitive Church, and continued ever since until this day. Abrenunc●as? Abrenuncio▪ Credis? Credo. Dost thou renounce the Devil and all his works? I do renounce them. Dost thou believe in God the Father Almighty & c.? All this I steadfastly believe. Wilt thou be baptised in this Faith? It is my desire. This baptisticall profession, which he ignorantly laugheth at, is attested by Fathers, by Counsels, by Leiturgies, ancient and modern; even by the Leiturgies of the Roman Church itself. And this is the undoubted sense of this place of the Council of Ephesus, that no man should dare to offer any other Creed, to any person, willing● to be converted from Paganism or judaism to Christianity, that is to say to be baptised. Always upon Palm sunday, such of the Catechument, as were thought fit to be admitted into the number of the Faithful, did petition for Baptism (the Anniversary time where of did then approach who from their joint petitioning were called competentes, and from that day forward, had some assigned to expound the Creed unto them, whereof they were to make solemn profession at their Baptism; as we find by the Homilies of the Fathers upon the Creed, made to the Competentes.  
So we keep ourselves to the old faith 〈◊〉 the whole Christian World, that is the Creed of the Apostles, explicated by the Nicene, Constantinopolitan, Ephesine, and Chalcedonian Fathers; the same which was professed by them of old at their Baptism, and is still professed by us at our Baptism; the same wherein all the Christian World, and themselves among the rest were Baptised. None of us all ever made any profession at our Baptisms, of the Universality of the Roman Church, or of the Sovereign Monarchical power of the Roman Bishop by divine right, or of the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, Indulgences, Imageworship, or the like. Wherefore we are resolved to adhere to that faith which hath been professed always, everywhere, and by all Persons, and particularly both by them and us at our Baptisms; in which faith and which alone, we were made Christians, without either diminution or Addition of any new Essentials. This was their faith formerly, and this is ours still. But he objecteth it is a great Absurdity, that thus the Creed defined by the Fathers in the Council of Nice, 
p●. 495  and the Apostles Creed, according to the Bishop are one and the same Creed. Have you found out that? Yes, indeed are they, and always have been so reputed in the Church, even in the Roman Church itself in their ancient Leiturgies, which call the Nicene Creed the Evangelicall Creed, the Creed of the Apostles, inspired by the Lord, instituted by the Apostles; and when he groweth older, he will be of the same mind.  
I hope by this time he seeth that although I did not cite the Council of Ephesus in this place, and therefore could be no falsifier of it: Yet the Council of Ephesus saith more than I did in every respect. I said only the Council did forbid: but the Council itself goeth higher, that whosoever should dare. I said forbid to exact: but the Council itself goeth higher, whosoever should dare to compose, or publish, or offer. The Original word is Prospherein, to offer, and as it is translated into Latin, Qui verò ausi fuerint aut componere fidem alteram, aut proffer, aut offer. Whosoever shall dare to compose, or to utter, or to offer another faith or Creed. One may compose or publish and not offer; one may offer and not exact: but whosoever doth exact doth more than offer. If the Council doth forbid any man to compose or publish, or offer any other Creed, much more doth it forbid them to exact it. Thirdly I said to exact any more than the Apostles Creed, as it was explicated by the Fathers, that is, concerning Essentials of saith: but the Council goeth higher, to compose or publish or offer alteram fidem, another Creed, containing either more or less, either new Essentials or new Explications. I said only at our Baptismal profession: but the Council extendeth it further, to the reconciliation of Heretics, as well as the Baptism of Pagans and jews; and generally to all occasions, not allowing any man Clergy or Lay, to compose or publish any other Creed or form of profession. So every way the Council saith more than I said.  
But he saith, there is nothing in the Council of Baptismal profession, except the bare word fidem. Well, fides in that place signifieth the Creed, and that Creed which all Christians did profess at their Baptism, is their Baptismal Profession. But that is not all, for as fides signifies their Creed or Profession of faith: so those other words, to any Persons willing to be converted from Paganism or judaism, signifies as much as who desire to be Christened or to be Baptised. But he saith, these words if the proposers of another faith ●e Lay men, let them be excommunicated, do make it impossible to have relation to Baptism, because the Ordinary Minister of Baptism is a Clergy man. If a Sophister should have brought such an Argument in the Schools, he would have been hissed out for his labour. Because one part of the Canon hath reference to Lay men, therefore no part of it can have reference to Clergy men. Just like this, an Aethiopians teeth are white, therefore it is impossible that any part of him should be black. Whereas the Canon saith expressly the Contrary, if they be Bishops or Clerks let them be deposed, if Laymen Anathematised.  
But this great Censurer himself doth falsify the Council of Ephesus indeed, twice in this one place. Once in omitting the word Prospherein, to offer. Secondly where he saith, that Charisius had made a wicked Creed. It was not a wicked Creed, but a wicked exposition of the Creed which the Council condemned, Depravata Symboli Expositio; Which was indeed produced by Charisius, but neither made by him, nor approved by him, but condemned by him as well as by the Council. Observe Reader, with what gross Carelessness these great Censurers do read Authors, and utter their fictitious Fancies with as great Confidence. He would have called this Forgery in another.   

Sect. I. Cap. XII.  
He saith I charged their whole Church, with changing the ancient discipline of the Church, into a Sovereignty of power above General Counsels, whereas I confess that it is not their Universal Tenet, and withal acknowledge that they who give such Exorbitant Privileges to Popes, do it with so many Cautions, that they signify nothing; And then courteously asks me, whether this be a matter deserving that Church Unity should be broken for it? 
I charge not the Church but the Pope and his party  I do easily believe that this is one of his merry Stationer's Contradictions. What pitiful Cavils doth he bring for just exceptions? First I do not clap it upon their whole Church (that is one injury, or if I should speak in his language a gross Falsification) but upon the guilty party. Secondly, I never said that they who change the ancient Government of the Church, into a Sovereignty of power, do it with so many Cautions: but I spoke expressly of them, who ascribe infallibility and temporal power over Princes to the Pope; This is another injury or falsification. Thirdly, how often must I tell him, that we did not disunite ourselves from their Church: but only reinfranchise ourselves from their Usurpations? Lastly, this party which advanceth the Papacy, above the Representative Church, is no worse than their Virtual Church, the Pope and the Court of Rome with all their adherents, they who have the Keys in their hands: such a party as he dare not say his soul is his own against them, nor maintain the Contrary; that a General Council is above the Pope.  
He urgeth, that I ascribe no more to S. Peter and the Pope for their first Movership, 
pag. 496. First movership.  but only Authority to sit first in Council or some such things. I ascribe unto the Pope, all that power which is due unto him either by divine right or humane right, at the judgement of the Church, but I do not hold it meet, that he should be his own Carver. And for S. Peter, why doth he not leave his wording of it in Generals and fall to work with Arguments in particular, if he have any? We offer him a fair trial for it, that S. Peter never enjoyed or exercised any greater or higher power in the church, than every one of the Apostles had, either extensively or intensively, either in relation to the Christian world or the Apostolical College, except only that Primordium Vnitatis or Primacy of Order, which he scoffeth at every where: Yet neither do we make his first Movership, void of all Activity and influence, as he accuseth us. First we know he had Apostolical power, which was the highest spiritual power upon Earth, As my Father sent me so send I you. Secondly, some power doth belong to a First Mover even by the Law of nature, besides the First seat; As to convocate the Members, to preserve Order, to propose such things as are to be discussed, to receive the Votes, to give the Sentence, and to see it executed so far as he is trusted by the Body. What the Church of England believeth, 
p. 497,  of the Pope's inheriting St. Peter's Privileges, and the exercise of that power before the Reformation, and how the breach was made, and when, I have showed abundantly already.  
We have seen his rare skill, in the discovery of a Falsification or a Contradiction, now let us see if his scent be as good to find out an Absurdity. He maketh me argue thus, The Pope did not exercise St. Peter's power, because he exercised St. Peter's power and much more, which is as much as to say, totum est minus parte; and more does not contain less: and then he Crows out his Victory aloud; a hopeful Disputant, who chaseth rather to run upon such Rocks etc. What Rocks, doth he mean? I hope none of the Acro●eraunia. those ridiculous things which he calls Rocks, are soapy bubbles of his own Blowing. This inference is none of mine, but his own Is it not possible for this great pretender to sincerity, to miss one Paragraph without Falsifications? Give him leave to make Inferences and Periphrases [which is as much as to say] and Africa did never abound so much with Monsters, as he will make the most rational writing in this world abound with Absurdities. I desire the Courteous Reader to view the place, and either to pity his Ignorance, or detest his Impudence. The words which I answered were these, That the Bishops of Rome actually exercised St. Peter's power in all those Countries, which kept Communion with the Church of Rome, that very year when this unhappy Separation began. My answer was, that this Assertion did come far short of the truth in one respect, for the Popes exercised much more Power in those Countries which gave them leave, than ever St Peter pretended to. Here is no other inference but this, The Pope exercised more power than ever St. Peter pretended to, therefore this Assertion that he exercised St. Peter's power came short of the truth; which consequence is so evident that it can admit neirher denial or doubting. What hath this to do with his whole is less than the part, or more does not contain the less?  
But now suppose I had said, 
Half more than the whole▪  as he maketh me to say on his own head, that in this case the whole is less than the part, or more does not contain the less, what had he to carp at? Hath he never heard or read, that in morality the half is more than the whole? Hath he forgotten his Ethics, that he who swerveth from the Mean or strict measure of virtue, whether it be in the excess or in the defect, is alike Culpable, and commethshort of his Duty? If the Pope as Successor to S. Peter, did usurp more power then S. Peter had right to; no man in his right wits, can call it the actual exercising of S. Peter's power.  
The second part of my answer was, 
Papal usurpations not universal.  that as the Pope exercised more power than was due to him, in some places, where he could get leave: so in other places, no less than three parts of four of the Christian World, that is all the Eastern, Southern, and Northern Churches, his Universal Monarchy which he claimed, was universally rejected. For this I am first reviled. Are moderate expressions of shamelessness sufficient to Character this man? etc. If better was within better would come out. But Stultis the saurus iste est in linguasitus, ut discant male loqui melioribus. And then when he hath first censured me, he attempteth to answer me, as well as he is able, that the Pope exercised his power over them, by excommunicating them as Revolters. As Revolters? In good time; They were Christians and had Governors of their own, before either there was a Church of Rome, or Bishop of Rome, and never acknowledged themselves to be his Subjects until this day, nor regarded his Excommunicatious upon that score at all. If they were Revolters, the Apostolical Age and all succeeding Ages were joined in the Revolt. These are his rigorous demonstrations, to prove the Pope's single jurisdiction by divine right, from his own impotent Actions. If the Pope have a Supremacy of Power by divine right, he hath it over the world, but that we see evidently he never enjoyed from the beginning: if he did did not enjoy it universally from the beginning, then certainly it cannot be an Apostolical Tradition.  
I do begin with the Eastern Church, because their case is plainest, as having Protopatriarchs of their own, and Apostolical Churches of their own: but when that is once acknowledged, I shall be contented to join issue with him in the West, First for our Britannic Churches, and next even for the Church of Rome itself; that the Pope's Universal Monarchy, and plenitude of Sovereign power by divine right, was neither delivered from Parents to Children by perpetual Tradition, as a Legacy of Christ and his Apostles, nor received by the Sons of that Individual Church as a matter of Faith; but only a Primacy of Order or beginning of Unity, which we do not oppose, nor yet those accessions of humane power, which Christian Emperors and Ecumenical Counsels, have conferred upon that See, provided they be not exacted as a divine right.  
His First Movership and his First Governourship, are but general unsignificant Terms, which may agree as well to a beginning of Unity or Primacy of Order, as to an absolute Monarchy or plenitude of power. If he will say any thing to purpose he must say it particularly, particulars began the breach particulars must stop the breach. I have given him an account, what particular Differences we have with him concerning St. Peter, what particular Differences we have with him concerning the Pope, let him apply himself to those, and not make continual Excursions (as he doth) out of the Lists.  
When I acknowledged an Authority due to the Roman Bishop in the Church, 
What respects due to the Pope.  as a Bishop in his Diocese, as a Metropolitan in his Province, as the Bishop of an Apostolical See and Successor of St. Peter, I expected thanks; there are many that will not yield him one inch of all these steps without a new conflict. But behold the evil natures or evil manners of this Age, I am accused for this of frivolousness and insincerity. Yet I will make bold to tell this Apprentice in Theology, 
pag. 498.  that whensoever the case cometh to be solidly discussed, it will be found that the principal grounds (if I had said the only grounds I had not said much amiss) of the Pope's pretended Monarchy, are the just rights and Privileges of his Patriarchateship, his Protopatriarchateship, and his Apostolical Chair, mistaken for Royalties, for want of good Distinction. I know the Court of Rome, who have been accustomed in these latter times, to milk the purses of their Clients, do not love such a dry Primacy (as he phraseth it): but where they have no more right, and other Churches have a care to preserve their own Privileges, they must have patience perforce.  
His Parallel between the King of England and the Pope, 
pa. 302. Extent of Papal power.  will be then to some purpose, when he hath first proved that the Pope hath a Monarchy: until than it is a mere begging of the Question; what a gross Solecism that is in Logic, he cannot choose but know. But since he is favourably pleased to dispense with all men for the extent of Papal power, so they believe the Substance of it, and yet he himself either cannot, or dare not determine what the Substance of Papal power is; he might out of his Charity have compassion, and not style us Mountebanks, who know no difference, between Roman catholics and ourselves about the Papacy, but only about the extent of Papal power. Although he style us heretics now, yet he was lately one of us himself: and would have continued so longer, if he had understood himself better, or the times been less Cloudy. Let him call it Substance, let him call it extent, let him call it what he will, I have given him our Exceptions to their Papacy, let him satisfy them as well as he ●an, and let truth prevail: We have not ●enounced the substance of the Papacy, except the substance the Papacy do consist ●n Coactive power. I side with no parties, ●ut honour the Church of England, and welcome truth wheresoever I meet it.  
Tros Tyriusve mihi nullo discrimine habetur. He telleth his Reader, that I grant the whole question, where I affirm that the Bishop of Rome had Authority all over, as the Bishop of ●n Apostolical Church, or Successor of St. Peter. Much good may it do him. As if every Bishop of an Apostolical Church, were strait way an universal Monarch; or as if Authority did always necessarily imply jurisdiction, or every Arbitrator or Depositary were a legal judge. I had reason to place a Bishop of an Apostolical Church, in my Climax, after a Patriarch, for the larger extension of his Authority every where, not for the higher intention of his jurisdiction any where.  
I urged that if the Bishop of Rome did succeed St. Peter, by the ordinance of Christ, in this Privilege to be the Prince and Sovereign of the Church, endowed with a single Sovereignty of power, that the Great Council of Chalcedon was much to be blamed, to give equal Privileges to the Patriarch of Constantinople with the Patriarch of Rome, and to esteem the Imperial City more than the Ordination of Christ. To the second part of this Argument, that the great Council of Chalcedon, did ground the Advancement both of Rome and Constantinople, upon the Imperial Dignity of those two Cities, and to much more which is urged there against him, he is as mute as a Fish: but to the former part he answereth, that for any thing I know to the Contrary Rome might remain superior in jurisdiction, though they had equal Privileges. Very pretty indeed. He would have his Readers to believe, that a Sovereign and his Subjects have equal Privileges. Equals have no power one over another; there may be a Primacy of Order among Equals, but Supremacy of power taketh away Equality. Doth not he himself make it to be S. Peter's Privilege to be Prince of the Apostles? And doth not he tell us that this Privilege descended from S. Peter upon the Bishop of Rome? Then if the Bishop of Constantinople, have equal Privileges with the Bishop of Rome, he is equal to him in this Privilege which descended from S. Peter. 
Rome and Constantinople equal.   
Let him listen to the eight and twentieth Canon of that Council, where having repeated and confirmed, the decree of the General Council of Constantinople to the same purpose, 
Conc. Chalc. cap. 28.  they conclude thus, for the (Nicene) Fathers did justly give Privileges to the See of old Rome, because it was the Imperial City. And the hundred and fifty Godly Bishops (in the Council of Constantinople) moved with the same consideration, did give equal Privileges to the See of new Rome; Rightly judging, that that City which was the Seat of the Empire and the Senate, should enjoy equal Privileges with the ancient Imperial City of Rome, and be extolled and magnified in Ecclesiastical affairs as well as it, being the second in Order from it. And in the last sentence of the judges, upon the Review of of the Cause, The Archbishop of the Imperial City of Constantinople or new Rome, must enjoy the same Privileges of honour, and have the same power out of his own Authority, to ordain Metropolitans in the Asiatic, Pontic, and Thracian Dioceses. That is as much in Law as to say, have equal jurisdiction; for all other rights do follow the right of Ordination.  
But he knoweth right well that this will not serve his turn, his last refuge is to deny the Authority of the Canon; telling us that it was no free Act, but voted tumultuously, after most of the Fathers were departed. And miscalling it a Bastard issue pinned to the end of the Council. Which is altogether as false as any thing can be imagined to be. It was done before the Bishops had their Licence to depart; It had a sec●nd hearing, and was debated by the Pope's own Legates on his behalf, before the most glorious judges, and maturely sentenced by them, in the name of the Council. This was one of those four Counsels, which St. Gregory honoured next to the four Gospels. This is one of those Counsels, which every succeeding Pope, doth swear solemnly to observe to the least tittle. I hope the Pope hath a better Opinion of it then he, at least for his Oaths sake.  
Good Reader observe, 
Schism. disarm. pa. 112.  what Clusters of Forgeries, this great Censurer hath repacked together, in the compass of a few Lines. I need to cite no other Authority to convince him, but the very Acts of the Council. Remember whilst thou livest to distrust such Authors. First he saith, This was no free Act, most falsely: the Bishops all owned it as their free Act by their Subscriptions, and by their Testimonies before the judges. Secondly he saith, the Clergy of Constantinople extorted it, with tumultuous importunity, most falsely: for it had been once decreed before in the free general Council of Constantinople; and then the Clergy of Constantinople, did entreat the Pope's Legates to be present at the first debate of it, but they refused; and when the said Legates alleged in Council that the Fathers were forced, they all unanimously testified against them, Nemo coactus est. Thirdly he saith, it was voted after most of the Fathers were departed, and only those of the party of Constantinople left, most falsely: the Fathers were forbidden to depart, and three of the Protopatriarchs with their subordinate Bishops determined it, and subscribed the first day. Fourthly he saith, it was disavowed by the Patriarch of Antioch and those under him, most falsely: for the Patriarch of Antioch and those under him did ratify it, and subscribe it in Council. Fifthly he saith, No Patriarch of Alexandria was there; Good reason: For there was none in being, the See being vacant, by the turning out of Dioscorus. Though this be not so false as the rest, yet it is as deceitful as the worst of them. Sixthly he saith, the Alexandrian Metropolitans and Bishops refused to subscribe it. They did not refuse to subscribe it, but they requested the Council, that because it was their Custom to subscribe nothing, until first it was subscribed by their Patriarch, that the Subscription might be deferred, until they had a new Patriarch chosen; and they themselves were contented to stay in Chalcedon, until this was effected. Now Iudg● freely Reader, whether this man do not deserve a whetstone.  
That which followeth concerning Immediate Tradit on▪ is but one of his Ordinary Meanders, or an improper Repetition of an heap of untruths and uncertainties, blundred together to no purpose, without any proof. That the Tradition of all Churches of the Roman Communion is necessarily an Universal Tradition; That only those Churches of the Roman Communion do adhere to the rule of Tradition, and all other Churches have renounced it; That all those who differ from the Church of Rome did never pretend immediate Tradition, for those points wherein they differ from it: are so many gross untruths. That the very same which is delivered by some Christian Parents to their Children, is delivered by all Christian Parents after the same manner; That whatsoever is delivered by Christian Parents of this Age, is necessarily derived from the Apostles by au uninterrupted Succession; And that external Unity doth necessarily imply an Identity of Tradition: Are contingent uncertainties, which may be true or may be false. His reason, that it is impossible for the beginners of a Novelty, to pretend that their immediate Fathers had taught them, that which the whole World sees they did not; is absurd and impertinent, and may serve equally to both parties.  
First it is absurd and Contrary to the Sense of the whole World. We see daily by experience, that there are Innovations in Doctrine and Discipline, and both parties pretend to ancient and immediate Tradition, he might as well tell us.  Nil int●a est oleum, nil extra est in Nuce duri. 
The Arrians pretended to immediate Tradition as well as the Orthodox Christians. 
Changes undiscernible▪  Secondly it is impertinent; Changes in Religion are neither so sudden nor so visible as he imagineth, but are often made by degrees, in tract of Time, at leisure, insensibly, undiscernibly. An Error comes first to be a Common Opinion, than a pious Doctrine, lastly a point of faith: but seldom do Errors appear at first in their own shape.  Fallit enim vitium specie virtutis & umbrâ. 
A beginning of Unity in time may grow to be a Sovereignty of power. Investitures were taken away from Kings for fear of Simony: and this fear of Simony before the wheel had done running, produced the most sublimated Art of Simony that ever was devised. Who would or could have suspected, that those huge Cries for free Liberty of Election, should have ended in Papal Provisions; or the Exemption of Clergymen from their Allegiance to their native Prince, have been an Introduction to a ●ew Oath of Allegiance to a Foreign Prelate? The subjection of the Emperors to the Popes, began with Pictures, proceeded to Poetry, and ended in down right Maxims of Theology. There hath always been a Mystery of Iniquity, as well as a Mystery of Piety; the Tares were sown whilst men slept, and were not presently discerned. It is not I, who have changed faith into opinion: My faith is the very same that always was professed throughout the Christian World, by every Christian at his Baptism, and comprehended in the ancient creed of the Church. But it is they who have changed Opinion into faith, when Pius the fourth metriculated 12. new Opinions, among the ancicient articles of the creed. Let them be probable, or pious, or erroneous, or what you will; I am sure they are but Opinions, and consequently no Articles of faith.  
I said such Opinions of an inferior Nature, 
Opinions not necessary  are not so necessary to be known. He asketh, Whether they be necessary or no? If they be not necessary, why do I grant them to be necessary by saying, they are not so necessary? If they be necessary, why call I them but Opinions? Doth he know no distinction of things necessary to be known, that some things are not so necessary as other? Somethings are necessary to be known, necessitate medii, to obtain Salvation: Somethings are necessary to be known only, necessitate Precepti, because they are Commanded, and they may be Commanded by God or Man; the latter are not so necessary as the former. Somethings are absolutely necessary to be known by all Men: Some other things are only by some Men; 
john. 3. 10.  Art thou a Master in Israel and knowest not these things? Somethings are enjoined to be held only for Peace sake; those are not so necessary to be known as the Commandments, or the Sacraments, or the Articles of the Creed. The Pope's infallibility in his definitions of faith, is but an Opinion, and yet they hold it necessary. The Superiority of a General Council above the Pope, was a necessary Opinion in the time of the Counsels of Constance and Basile: 
Bell. de Concil. lib. 2. cap. 17.  and now the Contrary Opinion is fere de Fide; almost an Article of Faith.  
He knoweth better by this time what I understand by points of Faith publicly professed; even the Articles of the Creed, which every Christian that ever was from Christ's time until this day, professed at his Baptism. All the Christian world have ever been baptised into the Faith of the old Creed, never any man yet was baptised into the Faith of their new Creed: If these new Articles, be as necessary to be known and publicly professed for the common salvation as the Old, they do them wrong to baptise them but into one half of the Christian Faith. 
Heresies impeach not the perpetuity of tradition   
He troubleth himself needlessly with jealousy and suspicion, lest under the notions of Faith universally professed, and the Christian world united, I should seek a shelter or Patrociny for Arrians, or Socinians, or any other mushroom Sect; as if the Deity of Christ were not delivered by Universal Tradition, or not held by the Christian world united, because of thei● Opposition. I do not look upon any such Sects, which did or do oppose the Universal and perpetual Tradition of the Catholic Church before their days, as living and lasting Streams, but as sudden and violent Torrents: neither do I regard their Opposition to the Catholic Church, any more than of a Company of Phrenetick persons, whilst I see plainly a part ante, that there was a time when the wheat did grow without those Tares; and a part post, that their Errors were condemned by the Catholic Church. This exception of his hath great force against his immediate Tradition; should the Children of Arrians or Socinians, persist in their Arrian or Socinian Principles, because they were delivered to them, as the Legacies of Christ and his Apostles, by their erring Parents? But against my Universal and perpetual Tradition they have no force at all. Neither do I look upon their petty interruption, as an impeachment to the Succession from the Apostles, no more than I esteem a great mountain, to be an Impeachment to the roundness of the Earth.  
Neither was it the Church of Greece, and all the other Eastern, Southern, and Northern Churches, which receded from this Universal Tradition, in the case in Difference between us, concerning the discipline of the Church; but the Church of Rome which receded from them.  
Non tellus Cymbam, tellurem Cymba reliquit. He knoweth little in Antiquity, who doth not know, that the Creed was a Tradition both materially, as a thing delivered by the Apostles, and Formally as being delivered by Oral Tradition. But he who shall say (as he doth) that all the points controverted between us and them, were delivered as derived from the Apostles, 
No tradition for the points in difference between us.  in a Practice as daily Visible as is the Apostles Creed, by our Forefathers; as invoking Saints for their intercession, the the lawfulness of Images, praying for the dead, Adoration of the Sacrament &c. and in particular the Subjection to the Pope as Supreme head (to use his own phrase) is a frontless man, His very mumbling of them, and chopping of them by halves, as if he durst not utter them right out, is a sufficient Evidence of the Contrary. We do not charge them only with invoking Saints for their intercession, or to speak more properly with the invoking God to hear the intercession of his Saints: but with more insolent forms of ultimate prayers to the Creatures, to protect them at the hour of death, to deliver them from the Devil, to confer spiritual Graces upon them, and to admit them into heaven, precibus meritisque, not only by their prayers but likewise by their merits. As improper and Address, as if one should fall down on his Knees before a Courtier, and beseech him to give him a Pardon, or to knight him, meaning only that he should mediate for him to the King.  
We do not question the lawfulness of their having of Images; but worshipping of them, and worshipping of them with the same worship which is due to the Prototype. We condemn not all praying for the dead, not for their resurrection, and the consummation of their happiness: but their prayers for their deliverance out of Purgatory. We ourselves adore Christ in the Sacrament, but we dare not adore the Species of bread and wine. And although we know no divine right for it: yet if he would be contented with it, for peace sake we could afford the Bishop of Rome a Primacy of Order by humane Right, which is all that antiquity did know. And if any of our Ancestors in any of these particulars, did swerve from the Universal Perpetual Tradition of the Church, we had much better warrant to return to the Apostolical line and Level, than he himself had to desert those principles temerariously, which his immediate Forefathers taught him, as delivered by the Apostles and derived from them.  
His next exception is a mere Logomachy, that I call two of his Assertions Inferences. What doth this concern either the person or the Cause? Either this is to contend about the shadow of an Ass, or I know not what is. Let them be premises or Conclusions which he will, they may be so disposed to make them either; if they be neither what do they here, if they be conclusions they are inferences. He calleth the former Conclusion their chief Objection; who ever heard of an Objection without an Inference? And the second is so far from being no Inference, that it comprehendeth four Inferences, one from the first Principle, another from the second Principle, and the third from both Principles. That Churches in Communion with the Roman have the only right Doctrine in virtue of the First Principle, and the only right Government in virtue of the second Principle, and Unity necessary to Salvation in virtue of both Principles. And the last conclusion is the General Inference from all these, And by consequence we hold them, only to make the entire Catholic Church.  
I said truly, that we hold both their Rules of Unity; I add that we hold them both in the right sense, that is, in the proper literal sense of the words: but what their sense of them is, concerneth them not us. If by the Pope's Supremacy he understand a single Sovereignty or Supremacy of power, by virtue of Christ's own Ordinance; we hold it not indeed, neither did the Catholic Church of Christ ever hold it. So likewise if by Tradition of our Ancestors, he understand Universal and Perpetual Tradition, or as it were Universal and perpetual; we join hands with him: but if by Tradition he understand the particular and Immediate Tradition of his Father, or ten thousand Fathers, or the greater part of the Fathers of one Province or one Patriarchate, in one Age, excluding three parts of the Catholic Church of this Age, and not regarding former Ages between this Age and the Apostles; we renounce his Rule in this Sense, as a Bond of Error not of Unity. And yet in general, according to the Literal sense of the words, we embrace it as it is proposed by himself; that The Doctrines inherited from our Fore fathers, as the Legacies of Christ and his Apostles, are only to be acknowledged or Obligatory. So we acknowledge both his Rules in the Literal sense de facto: but the Pope's single Supremacy of Power and particular Tradition, were never Principles of Unity, neither de facto nor de jure; and so he may seek for his flat Schismatic de facto at Rome.  
I said there was a Fallacy in Logic of more interrogations than one, when Questions of a different nature are mixed, to which one uniform answer can not be given. He saith he put no Interrogatory at all to me. True; but he propounded ambiguous Propositions to be answered by me, confounding St. Peter and the Pope, an Headship of Order and an Headship of power, which is all one. An head of Order hath power to Act First, as well as sit ●irst: but he acteth not by his own single power, but by the conjunct power of the body or College.  
To show him, 
Pa. 510.  that I am not ashamed of my voluntary railing (as he phraseth it) too silly to merit transcribing or answering, I will transcribe it for him. [The Church or Court of Rome have Sophisticated the true Doctrine of Faith, by their supplemental Articles, contrary to the First Principle; and have introduced into the Church, a Tyrannical Government, contrary to the second Principle: and are so far from being the entire Catholic Church, that by them both they are convicted to have made themselves guilty of Superstition and Schism]. If this be railing, what Term doth his Language deserve? If this be silly, what pitiful stuff is his?  
He said my only way to clear our church from Schism, 
The Proof rests on their side.  was to disprove his two Rules. I answered he was doubly mistaken, first in putting us to prove or disprove, who are the persons accused, the defendants duty is to answer not to prove: that is the duty of the accuser. They accuse us of Schism, therefore they ought to prove their Rules, whereon they ground their Accusation, in that Sense wherein they take them; not put us to disprove them. He urgeth that by this Method, no Rebel ought to give any reason why he did so, because he is accused of Rebellion by his lawful Governor. By his leave, he that condemneth a Subject of Rebellion, before he have proved his accusation, doth him wrong, But he saith, the truth is wheresoever there is a contest each side accuses the other, and each side defends itself against the others Accusations: but we were the first accusers, who could not with any Face have pretended to reform, unless we accused first our actual Governor of Usurpation. I told him before that he was doubly mistaken; now I must be bold to tell him that he is three ways mistaken. First the Pope was none of our actual Governor, in the external Regiment of the Church, by the Laws of England. Seco●dly our Reformation was no Accusation, but an Enfranchisement of ourselves sub moderamine inculpatae tutelae. Thirdly, I have already manifested the Usurpations of the Court of Rome, upon other manner of grounds them his ambiguous Rules. As we have proved our intention; so let him endeavour to prove his.  
My second answer was, that although the proof did rest on oursides: Yet I did not approve of his advice, that was, to disprove his two Rules. My reason is evident, we approve of his two rules as they were set down by himself; it is not we but they who have swerved from them, and therefore it were madness in us to disprove them. He saith, he dare swear in my behalf, that I never spoke truer word in my life, and out of his Supererogatory kindness offers himself to be bound for me, that I shall never follow any advice that bids me speak home to the point. What silly nonsense is this, should I follow any mans advice to disprove that which I approve? I have spoken so home to the point without any advice, that I expect little thanks from him and his fellows for it.  
What he prateth of a discipline left by Christ to the Church of England in Henry the eighths' time, is ridiculous indeed. And it equally ridiculous to hope to make us believe, that the Removal of a few upstart Usurpations, is a change of the discipline left by Christ to his Church. 
pag. 513.  And lastly it is ridiculous to Fancy, that later usurpations may not be reform by the Pattern of the Primitive times, and the ancient Canons of the Church, and the Practice of succeeding Ages, because we received them by particular Tradition from our immediate Fathers. That one place which he repeateth as having been omitted by me, hath been answered fully to every part of it.  
The rest of this Section is but a Repetition of what he hath said, without adding anything that is new; and in the Conclusion of this Treatise he giveth us a Summa totalis of it again (either he must distrust his Readers memory or his judgement): and yet for fear of not being understood, he recapitulates it all over again in his Index. Surely he thinketh his discourse so profound, that no man understands him except he repeat it over and over again: and for my part I did never meet with such a Torrent of Words, and such Shallowness of matter. And so I leave him to S. Augustine's censure alleged by himself. In mala causa non possunt aliter, at malam causam quis coegit eos habere.    

Sect. II.  
That they who cast Papal power out of England were no Protestants, but Roman Catholics throughout, except only in that one point of the Papacy.  
HItherto (he saith) he hath been the larger in his reply, because the former points were Fundamental concerning, and totally decisive of the Question. They do concern the Question indeed, to blunder and to confound Universal Tradition with particular Tradition, a Primacy of Order with a single Supremacy of power, jurisdiction purely Spiritual with external jurisdiction in foro contensioso: otherwise they concern not the Question. And for deciding of the Question; wherewithal should he decide it? who hath not so much as alleged one Authority in the Case, Divine or Humane, not a Text of Scripture, not a Canon of a Council, not a Testimony of a Father; who hath not so much as pretended to any Universal or perpetual Tradition, but only to the Particular immediate Tradition of the Roman Church; and this he hath only pretended to, but neither proved it, nor attempted to prove it, nor is it possible for him to prove by the particular Tradition of the Roman Church itself, that the Bishop of Rome is the Sovereign Monarch of the Church by Christ's own Ordination. His only grounds are his own Vapourous Fancies, much like Zenoes' Vaunts, who used to brag, that he sometimes wanted Opinions, but never wanted Arguments.  
My six grounds he styleth Exceptions. And why Exceptions? But let them be grounds, or exceptions, or whatsoever he will have them to be: and let him take heed that every one of those Trifles and Toys (as he calleth them) do not baffle him and trip up his heels.  
I pleaded that [Roman Catholics did make the first separation]. He answers, that this Plea doth equally acquit any Villain in the World, who insists in the steps of his Forefather Villains. Would no expression lower than this of Villains serve his tur●e? Who can help it? If those Forefathers (whom he intimates) were Villains or any thing like Villains, they were his Forefathers twenty times more than ours; We inherit but one point in difference from them, but he twenty: The denomination ought to be from the greater part. If any of them were deemed more propitious to us then the rest, it was Henry the eighth, or Archbishop Cranmer: For both these we have their own confession that they were theirs. First for Henry the eight, 
Guil. Alan. Apol. cap. 4. pag. 59  We had a King who by his Laws abolished the Authority of the Pope, although in all other things he would follow the faith of his Ancestors. And for Archbishop Cranmer hear another of them, Cranmer the unworthy Archbishop of Canterbury was his (the Earl of hartford's) right hand and chief Assistant in the work, although but a few months before he was of King Harry's Religion, yea a great Patron and Prosecutor of the six Articles. But to deal clearly with you, there is not the same reason to imitate a notorious knave in his confessed knavery, and to follow one who hath not only a reasonable and just cause of contending, but also the reputation of an honest man, even in the judgement of his adverse party, in all other things, except only therein wherein he is adverse to them. Such were all the Actors in this cause by their Confession. If we acknowledged, that they who cast out Papal Usurpations were Schismatics for so doing, he said something: but we justify their Act, as pious and virtuous; and so his Comparison hath never a leg to run on.  
I pleaded, that [it was a violent presumption of their Gild and our Innocence, when their best Friends, and best able to judge, who preached for them and writ for them, who acted for them and suffered for them, who in all other things were great Zelots of the Roman Religion, and persecuted the poor Protestants with fire and faggot, yet condemn them and justify this seperarion.] He minceth what I say according to his use, and then excepteth, The word [best] might have been left out; They ever were accounted better Friends who remained in their former faith, and the other Bishops looked upon as Schismatics by the Obedient party. 
Survey cap. 2.  Yet the Bishop of Chalcedon doubted not to call them the best of Bishops. He should do well to tell us for his credit's sake, who those other Bishops were who looked upon these as Schismatics. Such is his ignorance in the State of these times that he dreameth of two parties, an Obedient Party and a Rebellious Party; whereas there were no Parties but all went one way. There was not a Bishop, nor an Abbot of Note in the Kingdom, who did not vote the King's Supremacy, Four and twenty Bishops and five and twenty Abbots personally at one time. There was not a Bishop nor any person of note in the Kingdom, who did not take the Oath of the King's Supremacy, except Bishop Fisher and S. Thomas Moor; who were imprisoned for treason, either true or pretended, before that Act was made, for opposing the Succession of the Crown. If he will not trust me let him trust the Veredict of our Universities; A length we all agreed unanimously in this Sentence and were of one accord, 
Act. & Mon. p. 565. Reg. Epist. Vni. Ox. Ep. 2. Sac. Syn. An. 7. 1530. & 1532. 24 Hen. 8. c. 12. Devera Obedientia.  that the Roman Bishop hath no greater jurisdiction given him by God in holy Scripture, in this Kingdom of England, than any other Foreign Bishop. The same Sentence was given by our Convocations or Synods, The same Sentence was given by our Parliaments with the same concord and Unanimity, Nemine Dissentiente; We had no parties but one and all. Let him listen to his Friend Bishop Gardiner, No Foreign Bishop hath any Authority among us; all sorts of people are agreed with us upon this point with most steadfast consent, that no manner of person bred or brought up in England hath aught to do with Rome.  
And Ireland was unanimous herein with England. All the great Families as well of the Irish as of the English, did acknowledge by their Indentures to S. Anthony St. Leger then chief Governor of Ireland, the King's Supremacy and utterly renounce the jurisdiction of the Pope. 
Counc. book An● 32. 33. 34. Hen. 8.  Yet it was not the meaning of our Ancestors then, and (though some of them had been so minded) it is not our meaning now to meddle with the power of the Keys, or abridge the Bishop of Rome of any jurisdiction purely spiritual, or any Legacy which was left him by Christ or his Apostles: but only to cast out his usurped Coactive power in the exterior Court, without the leave of the Sovereign Prince, which Christ and his Apostles did never exercise or dispose of or meddle with, and to vindicate to our Kings the Political or external Regiment of the Church, by themselves and by their Bishops and other fit delegates, as a Right due to all Christian Princes by the Law of God and nature.  
But he attributeth all this to the Fear of the Clergy and the people, and the King's violent Cruelty: and for proof of what he saith, citeth half a passage out of Doctor Hammond, but he doth Dr. Hammond notorious wrong. Dr. Hammond speaketh only of the first preparatory act, which occasioned them to take the matter of right into a serious debate in a Synodical way: he applieth it to the subsequent act of Renunciation after debate. Dr. Hammond said only it is easy to be believed: Mr. Sergeant maketh it a just Presumption or confessed Evidence. Dr. Hammond speaketh of no fear but the fear of the law, the law of Praemunire; an ancient law made many ages before Henry the eighth was borne, the Palladium of England, to preserve it from the Usurpations of the Court of Rome: but he misapplieth it wholly to the fear of he Kings violent Cruelty. Lastly he smothers Dr. Hammonds Sense expressed clearly by himself, that there is no reason to doubt, but that they did believe what they did profess, the fear being the Occasion of their debates, but the reasons or Arguments offered in debate the causes (as in all Charity we are to judge) of their decision. He useth not to cite any thing ingenuously.  
If he did, he could have told his Reader, that this answer was taken away by me before it was made by him. For two whole Kingdoms, the Universities, the Convocations, the Parliaments, to betray their Consciences, to renounce an Article which they esteem necessary to salvation, only for the fear of a Praemunire or the loss of their goods, to forswear themselves, to deny the Essence of their faith, to turn Schismatics, as if they did all value their Goods more than their souls, without so much as one to oppose it; is a vain uncharitable surmise or rather it is incredible, and not only incredible but impossible. They were the men that advised the King to assume the Supremacy. 
Act. ad Mon.  Archbishop Warham told the King it was his right to have it before the Pope, Bishop Gardmer was the chief framer of the oath of Supremacy, Bishop Tonstall and longland's were the chief Preachers up of the King's Supremacy at St. Paul's Crosse. Tonstall justifieth it in his Letter to Cardinal Poole. Gardiner and Beckenshaw did write Polemic books in defence of the King's Supremacy. The whole Convocation did set forth a Catechism or catechetical book, to instruct the people in the King's right to the Supremacy, called the Institution of a Christian man. Bishop Bonner, bloody Bonner, who made such Bonfires of the poor Protestants, being then the King's Ambassador with Clement the 7th, 
Acworth contra Sand. l. 2. pag. 195.  did so boldly and highly set forth King Henry's Supremacy in the Assembly of Cardinals, that they thought of burning him or casting him into a vessel of Scalding lead, if he had not secured himself by flight.  
Suppose it was credible that they all voted out of fear, and took the Oath of Supremacy out of Fear; what fear could constrain them to advise the King to assume the Supremacy as his right, to frame the Oath of Supremacy, to instruct others in the King's right to the Supremacy, by private Letters, by public Catechisms, to preach up his Supremacy, to propugn his Supremacy in their Polemic writings, in their Orations before the Cardinals themselves with hazard of their lives, to tickle the King's ears with Sermons against the Pope's Supremacy? 
Speed in Hen. 8. cap. 21. n. 105.  Who shall still say what these men did was out of fear, must be a very credulous man. The contrary is as evident to the world as Noon day light. I will conclude this point of the Fear of the King's violent Cruelty, with Bishop Gardiner's Testimony of himself. 
D● verae Obedientia.  He objecteth that as a Bishop he had sworn to maintain the Supremacy of the Pope. To which he answereth, that what was holily sworn, is more holily omitted●, then to make an Oath the Bond of Iniquity. He confessed himself to have been married to the Church of Rome bona fide as to his second wife; but after the return of his firs● wife (that is the truth) to which he was espoused in his Baptism, being convicted with undeniable evidence, he was necessitated out of Conscience, to forsake the Church of Rome in this particular Question of Supremacy, and to adhere to his first wife the truth, and after her to his Prince the Supreme head of the English Church upon earth.  
Secondly, I pleaded that [although it doth not always excuse a toto from all guilt, to be misled by others into error, yet it always excuseth a tanto, it extenuateth the Gild]. This Allegation is so evidently true, that he hath not confidence enough to deny it, (which is a wonder,) but argueth against it, first, how could we think their example to be followed, whom we confess to have done what they did out of fear? Or rather what a shameless untruth is this? His witness saith, that fear might be the Occasion of the debate, but reason and Conscience were their directours in the decision; and we have demonstrated that their actions could not possibly proceed from fear.  
His second answer is, why do we not rather follow them in renouncing their Schism, as those Bishops did after the King's death? Once proved false is always presumed to be false. Who told him that they made any retractation af●er the King's death, after they were freed from their imminent fear? They made no Retractation, but held their Bishoprics in King Edward's time until other Questions did arise, and executed the Statute of Supremacy as rigorously as they did in Henry the eighths' time. For proof where of, I cite the Testimony of Queen Elizabeth, given to their Faces in their lives times, before the most eminent Ambassadors of the greatest Princes, when they might have contradicted it if they could, when the Emperor and other Roman Catholic Princes interceded with her for the displaced Bishops: She gave them this answer, that they did now obstinately reject that Doctrine, 
Camd. an. Eli▪ an 1559  which most part of themselves under Henry the eighth and Edward the sixth, had of their own accord with heart and hand, publicly in their Sermons and writings taught unto others, when they themselves were not private persons but public Magistrates. Observe the words, first, of their own accords. Secondly not only under Henry the eighth but Edward the sixth; therefalleth his Plea to the ground. Thirdly when they themselves were public Magistrates, and consequently in a Capacity of doing rather then of suffering. Lastly with heart and hand, not only in their Sermons, but also in their printed Writings. We use to say, there is no defence against a Flail: certainly against Subscriptions and public writings there can be no Defence.  
To the Queen's testimony I add another of Sanders, 
D● Schism. Anglic. l. 2. p. 282.  that the Bishops of Winchester, London, Durrham, Worcester, Chichester, Excellent Men and inwardly Catholics, yet being made Bishops in the Schism, they had not the Spirit of courage. Therefore they resisted faintly to the King's Primacy, or rather they subscribed simply both to it and all other innovations, which seemed not to contain open haeresy, lest they should lose their Bishoprics. When may we expect a true word from him?  
Thirdly, he urged the beginners of a fault, may be less culpable than their followers, when their Provocations be greater. Their Provocations were no less than expectation of death and destruction by the King's inhuman Cruelty: but our continuance in Schism compared to the Motives of theirs is in a manner gratis, all our reasons being for our Livings and Interest heretofore, and now a vain glorious Itch to approve ourselves to our party. We have had many proofs of his Veracity, here is one more of his Charity. Suppose his new light had lead him into ready Paths not Precipices, (which no man will grant him, but his own Fellows): Yet why should he accuse us of Hypocrisy rather than of error in judgement, who have lost all our estates for our Consciences, which probably he never had to lose, nor would have quitted it so if he had had it? but only that his own guilt doth dictate such uncharitable Censures to him. No Mr. Serjeant, we are no such Changelings or turning weather cocks; that is your own part: And you may live to act it over again, such hot water freezeth soon. Are you so blind, that you do not see that this Accusation might be retorted upon you, and upon your great Converts whom you propose to us for Patterns? Who as you say had been Schismatics in Henry the eighths' time; you might as well say for the most part of them in Edward the sixths' time also, and had no other way in the World to preserve or recover their Bishoprics in Queen mary's days but by pretending at least such a Conversion. But we are not so uncharitable as you, we judge them by their profession and leave their Consciences to God.  
Thirdly, I pleaded that although those who cast the Pope's pretended Sovereignty out of England, had been Schismatics as they were not: yet we cannot be charged with Schism, so long as we seek carefully after truth, and are ready implicity in the preparation of our minds to embrace it, whensoever we find it. Because he shall not Prevaricate with us, I will reduce my Argument into Syllogistical Form. Whosoever invented not their false Opinions themselves, but learned them from their erring Parents, are not to be reputed Heretics (much less Schismatics,) if they defend them not with pertinacious animosity, but inquire carefully after the truth, and be ready to embrace it, and correct their errors when they find them: But if we had any false opinions we invented them not ourselves, but learned them from our erring Parents. Therefore we are not to be reputed Heretics (much less Schismatics,) if we defend not our Opinions with pertinacious Animosity, but inquire carefully after the truth, and be ready to embrace it, and Correct our Errors when we find them. 
Aust. Epist. 162.  The Major is St. Augustine's to a word, and is yielded by Mr. Serjeant to be true. The Minor is evident to all the world and cannot be denied: Therefore the conclusion is firm.  
I do not urge this, as though I had the least suspicion in the world that our Ancestors did err, but to show that although they had erred, yet we are not to be reputed Heretics or Schismatics whilst we do our endeavours to find the truth, and embrace it implicitly in the preparation of our minds. Neither do I urge this to convince others who do not know our hearts, and perhaps will not believe us, when we tell them that we hold the truth implicity: but for the satisfaction of our own Consciences. We know whether we hold Opinions pertinaciously or not; and whether we desire and endeavour to find out the truth or not; and whether we are willing to embrace the truth whensoever God shall reveal it or not: None know it but God and ourselves, Mr. Sergeant cannot know it. And therefore as his answer is improper and contrary to the Rules of Logic, to deny the Conclusion or Condition contained in the Conclusion: So it is vain and presumptuous to judge of another man's Conscience, which is known only to God and himself. I cited S. Austin to prove the Proposition which he yieldeth, not the Assumption which is too evident in itself to be denied, much less to be a witness of our hearts which it was impossible for S. Austin to know. judge Reader what Ardelioes' and busy bodies these are, censuring and damning all Protestants to the Pit of Hell as Heretics and Schismatics, and yet when they are pressed home, are forced to confess, that if they do endeavour to find out the truth, which all good Christians do; then they are neither Heretics nor Schismatics. This may be a great Comfort and Satisfaction to all Conscientious Protestants, who are daily molested by these men and terrified with such Bugbears as these. But Mr. Serjeant hath devised a new Method to discover the hearts of Protestants, by the Testimony of their eyes, and the undeniable Veredict of their Reason, only by viewing my Answer to his first Section. Risum tenealis amici?  
To draw the Saw of Contention to and fro, about Henry the eighth Warham Heath Tonstall Gardiner Bonner &c, whether they were Protestants or Papists is impertinent and frivolous. Impertinent; let them call them Protestants, or Papists, or neither, or both, it it all one to my Argument, that it is a violent Presumption of their guilt and our Innocence, that all their great Scholars who preached for them, and writ for them, and acted for them, and suffered for them in all other differences, should desert them in this. And frivolous; to contend about the word when we agree upon the thing. The thing is without all Controversy or Dispute; they held with the Protestants in the Article of the Supremacy, and with the Papist in all other Articles what soever.  
Now whether their Denomination shall be from the greater part as it is in all other cases, (mix one drop of milk with twenty or forty of water, and we call it water not milk) or from the Lesser part as Mr. Serjeant would have it, I commit to the Readers judgement, and desire him to determine it himself; whatsoever way he determins it, his judgement will be less Prejudicial than to be molested with such wranglers.  
Protestants may persecute Protestants, but not as Protestants, and Papists may persecute Papists (as the jansenists persecute the jesuits), but not as Papists; even Ishmaels' mocks are termed persecutions: but they seldom make such bloody laws, against those whom they acknowledge to be of their own Communions, as the law of the six Articles was, or persecute them with fire and faggot as Bonner did. 
p. 520  He urgeth that between every Species of Colour which we have names for, there are hundreds of middle degrees for which we have no names. Well argued against himself; Wit whither wilt thou? Then why doth he call them Protestants, and give them a name? There are indeed between every Species of Colours, man middle degrees which have no distin● names: but therefore we give them the name of those Colours which they come neare● to; either with a distinction if the difference be easily expressed, as grassegreen● seagreen, willowgreen, etc. or without any distinction, the white of an Egg is not so white as snow, yet both white. If he would pursue his own instance this Controversy were ended.  
He prateth of the subordinate Sects of Protestants, and how changeable they are every day. He loveth to have a Vagare out of his lists. It is his Spiritual Mother the Church of England, that gave him his Christian being, which he hath undertaken to Combat; let him adorn that Sparta as he is able: and if he did it with more Modesty he were less to be blamed than he is. If she had been but his old Friend, yet Friendship ought to be unstitched by degrees not torn asunder suddenly. But to cast dirt in the Face of his own Mother, is a shrewd sign of an ill nature. As the Fool said to a Favourite, If I fall I can rise again, but if thou fall thou wilt never rise again: so if we change, there is no great danger in it, because we keep ourselves firmly to our old Essentials, that is the Apostles Creed; but their Change is dangerous, who change their Creed, and presume to add new Essentials to the old.  
He beareth such a perfect hatred against Reformation, because it is destructive to his Foundation of immediate Tradition, that he maketh No Papist and a Reformer to be the Character of a Protestant. Popes and Cardinals, Emperors and Kingdoms, Churches and Counsels have all acknowledged both the Lawfulness and necessity of Reformation. What doth he think of the Council of Trent, or hath he peradventure never read it? But what doth he think of the Counsels of Constance and Basile, who profess themselves every where to be qualified to reform the Church, tam in Capite quam in membris; as well in the head as in the members? They escape fairly if he do not censure them as Protestants: for they were great Reformers, and they were no great Papists, placing the Sovereign power under Christ in the Church and not in the first Mover. I might well call the Reformation in Henry the eights time their Reformation, the Papists Reformation rather than ours, if the Reformers were more Papists then Protestants, as it most evident.  
I pressed him that if the Renunciation of the Bishop of Rome's absolute universal Monarchy, by Christ's own Ordination, be the essence of a Protestant, than the Primitive Church were all Protestants. He answereth, it is flatsy false. I am contented to be silent for the present, but when time serveth, it may be made appear, to be flatly true; and that all that the Primitive Fathers did attribute to the Bishop of Rome, was no more them a Primacy of Order or beginning of Unity; and that an absolute Monarchy by Christ Ordination, is absolutely repugnant to the Primitive Discipline.  
I proceeded [then all the Grecian, Russian, Armenian, Abyssen Christians are Protestant's this day]. He answereth, that it it is partly true and partly false, and serveth only to prove that the Protestants have fellow Schismatics. And why partly true and partly false? when all the world seeth, that all these Churches do disown and disclaim the Pope's Monarchy. This is just the old condemned Tenet of the Schismatical Donatists, who did most uncharitably limit the Catholic Church to their own Party, excluding all others from hope of Salvation, as the Romanists do now. The best is, we must stand or fall to our own Master: But by this means, they have lost one of the notes of their Church, that is multitude, for they exclude three or four times more Christians, out of the Communion of the Catholic Church, than they admit into it.  
I proceeded yet higher, [than we want not store of Protestants, even in the bosom of the Roman Church itself]. His answer is, that to speak moderately, it is an impudent falsehood, and a plain impossibility, for whosoever renounceth the Substance of the Pope's Authority, and his being head of the Church, becomes totally disunited from the Church. Good words! His groundwork is to weak to support the weight of such an heavy accusation. A Primacy of Order implieth an headship, as well as Supremacy of power; neither is it destitute of all power. It hath some power essentially annexed to it, to congregate sub paena purè spirituali, to propose, to give sentence according to the votes of the College; It may have an accessary power, to execute the Canons according to the Constitutions of Counsels, and Imperial Sanctions, and Confirmations.  
But all this cometh far short of that headship which he asserteth, a Sovereign Monarchical Headship of absolute power, above the whole Church by Christ's Ordination. This is that Headship which he maintaineth against me every where. This is that Headship which the Primitive Church never acknowledged. This is that Headship which the Grecians, Russians, Armenians, Abyssines and the Church of England renounce at this day. This is that Headship, which many of his own Communion who live in the bosom of the Roman Church, do not believe; as the Counsels of Constance, and Basile, and Pisa, the School of Sorbon, and very many others every where who do all reject it, some more some less. The main difference and almost the whole difference between him and me, is concerning Coactive power, in the Exterior Court, over the Subjects of other Princes, against their wills; this is so far from being universally believed, throughout all places of the Roman Communion, that it is practically received in few or no places, further than it seemeth expedient to Sovereign Princes. If the Pope himself did believe, that he had such an absolute Sovereignty of Monarchical power, in the exterior Court by Christ's own Ordination, to him and his Successors, How could he alienate it from his Successors almost wholly to the Princes of Sicily, and to their Heirs for ever, within that Kingdom: Or how could the Princes retain it? If the King and Kingdom of France did believe, that the Pope had such an absolute Monarchical power, in the Exterior Court, by Christ's own Ordination; how could the King of France forbid the Pope's Legates without his Licence, or restrain their Legantine Commissions by his Parliaments, or swear them to act nothing contrary to the Liberties of the Gallican Church, and to cease to execute their Commissions whensoever the King and Kingdom should prohibit them, or reject Papal decrees further than they are received in that Kingdom? Or if the Council of Brabant did believe it, how could they forbid the Subjects to repair to Rome out of their own Country, upon the Pope's Summons? All men know that there is no Privilege or Prescription against Christ's own Ordination. Qui pauca considerate, facile pronunciat. This is ever the end of his Contradictions.  
Lastly he Chargeth me for omitting to answer to his reason, 
pa: 522  that the renouncing the Pope is essential to Protestantisme. Truly I neither did nor do hold it worth answering. Cannot he distinguish between the whole Essence of any thing, and one Essential? He might as well affirm, that he who believeth but one Article of his Creed is a Christian. This requireth no great skill to explicate it: but I have remitted this Controversy to the Reader as fittest for his determination.   

Sect. III.  
That Henry the 8. made no new Law: But only vindicated the ancient Liberties of England.  
CHristian Reader thou hast seen hitherto, how Mr. Serjeant hath failed altogether to make good his pretensions: and in stead of those great mountains of Absurdities, and falsifications, and Contradictions which he promised, hath produced nothing worthy of so weighty a cause, or an ingenious Scholar, but his own wilful ridiculous mistakes. We are now come to his third Section, wherein thou mayest see this young Phaeton mounted in his Triumphant Chariot, driving the poor Bishop as a Captive before him: now expect to see him tumbling down headlong, with a fall answerable to his height of pride and insolence. He professeth himself willing to stand to the Award of the most partial Protestant living, who hath so much sincerity as to acknowledge the Suns shining at noon day, or that the same thing cannot both be and not be at once. If after this loud confident brag; he be not able to make any thing good that is of weight against me, he hath forfeited either his judgement, or his ingenuity, and deserveth not to be a writer of Controversies. I need no partial judges, but appeal to the indifferent Reader of what communion soever he be: he needeth but to compare my Vndication his Answer, my Reply his Rejoinder, and my Surrejoinder together in this one short Section, and give sentence readily who is the Mountebank and Prevaricatour.  
And first I challenge this great Champion of downright Cowardice, as great as ever his Predecessor Thraso showed in the Comedy; in smothering and concealing palpably and shamefully his Adversaries reasons, and declining the heat of the assault. The main subject of this Section, was to show that the ancient Kings of England, did assume as much power in Ecclesiastical affairs as Henry the eighth did, that the Laws of Henry the eighth were no new Laws, but only renovations and Confirmations of the ancient Laws of England, which had never been repealed or abrogated in the days of his Predecessors, but were of force in England at that very time when he made his Laws; As the Statutes of Clarendon, The Statute of Carlisle, The Articles of the Clergy, The Statutes of Provisors and other old Laws made in the time of Henry the first, Henry the third, Edward the first, and Edward the third, Richard the second, Henry the Fourth, all of them dead and gone many ages before Henry the eighth was born. I showed particularly, that they suffered not the Pope to send for any English Subject out of England to Rome without leave, nor to send any Legate into England without leave, nor to receive any Appeal out of England without leave. They made it death, or at least the forfeiture of all a man's estate, to bring any Papal Bulls or Excommunications into England. They called Ecclesiastical Counsels, made Ecclesiastical Laws, punished Ecclesiastical persons, prohibited Ecclesiastical judges, received Ecclesiastical Appeals, made Ecclesiastical Corporations, appropriated Ecclesiastical Benefices, rejected the Pope's Laws at their pleasure with a Nolumus; we will not have the Laws of England to be Changed, or gave Legislative Interpretations of them as they thought fit. All this I have made evident out of our ancient Laws, our Records, our Historiographers; in my Vindication, in my Reply, and in this Treatise. And therefore I might well retort upon him his own Confident brag, that it is as clear as the suns shining at noon day, or that the same thing cannot be and not be at once; that our Ancestors who did all this and much more than this, did acknowledge no Monarchical power of the Pope in the Exterior Court, by Christ's own Ordination, as Mr. Serjeant asserteth; and that they did exercise as much power in the external Regiment of the Church, as Henry the eighth did; and that Henry the eighths' laws were no new laws devised by himself, but were the laws of these ancient Kings renewed by him, or rather the Fundamental Laws and Liberties of England, exposed by these ancient Kings as a Buckler against the Encroachments of the Roman Court.  
Now to all this clear evidence what answer doth Mr. Serjeant make? Just Thraso-like, when the matter comes to push of pike he sneaketh away post principia, into the securest place he can find. Speak the truth in earnest, did Pyrrhus use to do thus? It is not possible to squeeze one word of particular answer out of him: only in general he saith I bring divers allegations, 
Down Derry pa 311.  wherein the Pope's pretences were not admitted etc. And so proceedeth, do we profess the Pope can pretend to no more than his right & c.? Laws and Records are but bare Allegations with him: and prohibiting under pain of Death or Confiscation of Goods, is no more but not admitted. Speak out man and shame the devil; whether did the Pope pretend more than is right or not? whether were the ancient English Laws just Laws or not? This is certain, his Pretensions and these Laws cannot both be just. The very substance of his Monarchical power in the exterior Court, is prohibited by these Laws, his Sovereign power or Patronage of the English Church, his judiciary Power, his Legislative Power, his dispensative Power, all are lost if these Laws stand. All which Mr. Sergeant blancheth over with this general expression, such and such things. Will the Court of Rome thank such and such an Advocate, who forsakes them at a dead lift? I trow no.  
And although I called upon him in my reply, for a fuller and more satisfactory answer to these Laws: yet he giveth none in his Rejoinder, but shuffleth up the matter in Generals. As for his particularities entrenching on, or pretended to entrench on the Pope's Authority; whether they were lawfully done or no, how far they extended, in what Circumstances or cases they held in what not, how the Letter of those Laws are to be understood etc. all which the Bishop Omitts, though he express the bare words; it belongs to Canon and Secular Lawyers to scuffle about them, not me. I hold myself to the Lists of the Question, and the limits of a Controvertist. Yes, even as Thrasoheld himself to the Lists, when he stole behind the second wards. This is neither more nor less, but flat running away, and crying to the Canonists for help. If the subject be improper for him, why did he undertake it, and not try first, 
Quid ferre recusent,  
Quid valeant humeri.   
Why did he undertake it with so much youthful Confidence and insulting scorn and petulance, to accuse his adversary of impudence? And as if impudence were too moderate a Character for him, as a professed and sworn enemy of truth shame and honesty; making him worse than a mad man or born fool. And all this for pretending that Henry the eighth did no more against the Papacy, than his Ancestor Kings had done before him: and now when his Cavils are thrust down his own throat, when the impudence is brought home to him and laid at his own door, when the very Laws of his Ancestors are produced wherein they provided the same remedies for the Roman Court that Henry the eighth did; he would with draw his own neck o●t of the Collar, and leave the defence of his cause to the Canon and Secular Lawyers, to scuffle about the sense of these ancient Laws, and whether they were law fully done or no, and how far they extended, and in what cases they hold in what not. And this is all the answer, which he vouchsafeth to these ancient English Laws; that is as much as to say he knoweth not what to answer, or it doth not belong to him to answer: and this he calleth holding himself to the Lists of the Question, but all other men call it leaping out of the Lists of the Question, and a shameful deserting the cause he had undertaken to defend.  
I ever acknowledged that Henry the eighth made sundry new Statutes against the Usurpations of the Court of Rome: but I add that these Statutes were declarative of old Law, not Enactive of new Law. This is as clear as his noon daylight. And I proved it by the Authority of two of our greatest Lawyers, Fitz Herbert and my Lord Cook, persons sufficient to know the difference between a Statute declarative of old Law, and a Statute Enactive of new. Secondly, I proved it by one of the Principal Statutes themselves: those terms of Law which declare old Law, are not the same with those which enact new Law. This proof is demonstrative. He urgeth, if there were something new, it was new, and a Statute we Englishmen use to term a Law. So if he new turn his Coat, there is something new, yet we English men say his Coat is and old Coat for all that. Magna Charta or the great Charter of England is an old Law, yet it hath been renewed or newly declared by almost every succeeding King. New Statutes may declare old Laws.  
He saith I cite two Protestants Fitz-Herbert and my Lord Cook, both of mine own party, to speak in behalf of Protestants. I cite no Protestants as Protestants, nor to speak for Protestants, nor as witnesses in any case in difference between Protestants and Papists: but I cite two great English judges as judges, to speak to the Difference between a Declarative Statute and an Enactive Statute by the Law of England; and who could be so proper witnesses of the Law of England as they. Secondly who told him that Fitzherbert was a Protestant? No more a Protestant then himself; for any thing that ever I could perceive. He was a great judge, lived in Henry the eighths' time, and writ sundry works. Where he setteth down the Charge against a Papist, he doth it in such a manner that it can hurt no man, except he will confess himself to have done what he did obstinately and maliciously: 
Fitz Herbert the charge, pag. 111. & p. 129.  but where he setteth down the charge of a justice of Peace against Heretics or Lollards, he giveth it home. But Mr. Serjeant hath the art to make Protestants or Papists, of whom he list, so it serve his present turn. Thirdly, though Fitzherbert and my Lord Cook had said nothing, yet the case is as clear as the light, that this very Statute is Declarative of old Fundamental Law not Enactive of new Law.  
And this I prove first by view of the Statute itself. He that hath but half an eye in his head, may easily discern the difference between an Enactive Statute and a declarative Statute. An Enactive Statute looketh only forward to the time to come, and meddleth not at all with the time past▪ but a declarative law looketh both ways, backwards and forwards, forward to the time to come and backward to the time past. Again, the very from and tenor of the words is not the same in an Enactive Statute and in a Declarative Statute; An Enactive Statute regardeth only what shall be, but a Declarative regardeth what is and what hath been; an Enactive Statute createth new Law by the authority of the present Lawgiver, a Declarative Statute confirmeth old Law, and is commonly grounded upon the Fundamental Constitution of the Kingdom. 
24. Herald 8. cap. 12.  Now then let us take a view of this very Law. By divers old authentic histories and Chronicles it is manifestly declared, that this realm of England in an Empire and so hath been accepted in the world, governed by one supreme head and King etc. unto whom a body Politic compact of all sorts and degrees of people, divided by names of Spiritualty and Temporalty, owe next to God a natural obedience, he being instituted by the goodness of God, with plenary power to render final justice for all matters. You see plainly that this Statute looketh both ways forward and backward, and doth not only create new Law, but also declare what hath been, what is, and what ought to be the perpetual Law of England. By divers old authentic Histories and Chronicles it is manifestly declared &c.; than it is manifest that this is a declarative Law.  
He saith, I quote the Schismatical King himself and the Schismatical Parliament to speak in their own behalf. By his leave, he is mistaken, I ground not my reason upon the Authority of the King and Parliament, but upon the form or tenor of the Statute, whether these words do contain the form of an Enactive Statute or a Declarative Statute. Secondly, if I did so, yet he hath no reason to complain of it, who maketh the Pope and his Council to be the last judge in his own case. Thirdly, I shall be bold to screw up this pin a note higher, and tell him that if Henry the eight did make himself the last judge, in those differences between him and the Papacy, which concerned the Church and Kingdom of England, he did no more than many other Christian Kings and Princes have done before him; as I have showed in the Empire, Spain, Italy, Brabant etc. Fourthly, if that which was decreed in this Law, was decreed in former Laws standing in full force and unrepealed, than it is not Enactive of new Law, but Declarative of old Law: but I have produced him the Laws themselves, wherein the self same things have been decreed, and he turneth his back upon them, and referreth us to the Canonists for an answer. Lastly, it, is so far from being true, that those Statutes made by Henry the eighth were new Laws, tha● those ancient Statutes of Clarendon, of Carlisle, the Articles of the Clergy, the Statutes of Provisors, were no new Laws when they were made: but new declarations of the Fundamental Laws of England, or of the Original Constitution of the English Empire; as appeareth undeniably by the Statutes of Clarendon, the Statute of Carlisle, and the Statutes of Provisors; wherein the same truth is affirmed as positively as I can do it.  
But now, Reader, wilt thou see a convincing proof, of the extreme carelessness and unconscionable oscitance of this great Champion, who writeth his answers at Random, and never so much as readeth what is objected against him. I cited two Statutes; the one of 24. Hen. 8. cap. 12. the other of 16▪ Ric. 2. cap. 5. The Printer citeth them right i● the margin, but a little confusedly: but when Mr. Serjeant cometh to answer them, he confoundeth them indeed, attributing Richard the seconds Statute to Henry the eighth. And lest any man should excuse him and say it was the fault of the Printer, hear him; he allegeth another Statute made in the 24. of Henry the 8▪ Yes, well guessed: otherwise called the 16. of Richard the second. And a little after, what matters it what this Statute says, being made two years after his unlawful marriage with Anna Bullen? I know not where he learned this, except it was from the old Puppet player, who would have Queen Dido to be Richard the thirds Mistress; he might perchance have such another odd Fancy that Richard the second was Anne Boulogne's Servant. That which I observe in earnest is this, that he answereth at Random to he knoweth not what, and never peruseth that which is objected against him. If it had been some rare piece that was cited that he could not have come by it, it had been the more pardonable: but it is an English Statute which he might have found in every Bookebinders' Shop, in every Lawyer's Study, in every justice of Peace's Closet. And yet he is as confident as Gawen; the best Statute he could pick out you may be sure. How doth he know that? We all see he never read it, nor knoweth whether it be a Statute or no. Then he telleth us, there is not a Syllable in it concerning Spiritual jurisdiction. Well guessed by Instinct: but for once his Instinct hath deceived him; if Excommunication be any part of Spiritual jurisdiction, there is more than one Syllable of Spiritual jurisdiction in it. But concerning our English Statutes both ancient and new, which concern the casting of Papal Authority out of the Kingdom, I have given him a full satisfactory account formerly, to which I refer him.  
We have seen how careless he is in reading over Laws before he answer them: Now let us observe the same Oscitance or want of Ingenuity towards his Adversary, that he may learn what he gets by his Falsifications Nempe hoc quod Veneri donatae a virgine puppae. Real falsifications retorted upon him instead of his feigned ones. He answered that to limit an Authority, implies an admittance of it in cases to which the Limitation extends not. I replied, that these ancient Laws of England did not only limit an Authority, but deny it, that is deny it in such and such cases mentioned in the Laws, deny it Coactively in the exterior Court without the leave of the Sovereign Prince. So the Laws may differ, the restraints may differ, the leave may differ in degrees, according to the difference of places▪ notwithstanding this denial. That which he beateth at is this, that we deny all Papal power whatsoever; but other Churches do only limit it. I answer, we do not deny the Bishop of Rome all manner of power; We deny him not the power of the Keys, we deny him not any power purely Spiritual, we deny him not his beginning of Unity, if he could he contended with it: but we deny him all Coactive power in the Exterior Court, over the Subjects of other Princes, without the Sovereign's leave. If some Princes give more leave than others, as finding it more expedient for their affairs; we do not envy it.  
But he urgeth, that I do not deny equivalent Laws in France Spain Germany Italy. 
Reply pa. 21.  I neither deny it nor affirm it, or I affirm it only in part [Yes, there are some such Laws in all these places by him mentioned, perhaps not so many, but the Liberties of the French Church are much the same with the English]. Some such Laws, not so many, much the same, are no proofs of Equivalence: or if he will call them Equivalent, it is only secundum quid not simpliciter, respectively in some cases not universally in all cases. But he hath another place, which striketh home, 
Vind. pa. 73.  where I affirm that [the like laws may be found in Germany, Poland, France, Spain, Italy, Sicily, and if we will trust Padre Paolo, the Papacy itself]. But did either I or Padre Paolo, speak of those ancient English laws by me cited, made to restrain the Usurpations of the Bishops of Rome? So he saith, but it is a gross Falsification. I did neither speak of them in that place, nor Padre Paolo: but we both speak of another Law of a quite different nature from these, that is the Law of Mortmain, a Law merely Political to restrain men from giving Lands to the Church without Licence. Of this I said there are found like Laws to it in Germany, Poland, France, Spain, Italy, Sicily, and Padre Paolo addeth in the Papacy itself. What an Adversary have I to deal with, who either understandeth not what the Law of Mortmain is, or regardeth not how he falsifieth his Adversaries words?  
But from these mistaken and misshapen premises he draweth ten Conclusions, every one of them driving me to a Contradiction or Absurdity at least▪ The first second third and fourth are the same in effect, or all comprehended in the first, that it is opposite to the general opinion of the whole world, Catholics, Protestants, Puritans. Secondly, that it is against the profession of the Protestants, who extol that happy time when England was freed from the yoke of Rome. Thirdly, that it contradicts our Reformation in the point of the Pope's Supremacy, there could be no Reformation of that which was not otherwise before; and therefore Henry the eighth added something of his own to these ancient Laws. Fourthly, he saith that Doctor Hammond acknowledgeth, that Papal power was cast out of England in Henry the eights days. And the sixth is, that this Position is particularly opposite to the Common consent of the Catholic Countries, who all looked on Henry the eighth and the Church of England ever since as Schismatical. Doubtless he meaneth Roman Catholic Countries. Was it not enough to say that it was Contrary to the General opinion of the whole world, unless he added Protestants, and Reformers, and Doctor Hammond, and Roman Catholics, as if they were none of the world? Reader, I undertook to prove that Henry the eighths' Laws against the Usurpations of the Roman Bishop, were no new Laws, but ancient Laws of England; I have done it by producing the ancient Laws themselves, five or six hundred years old: and I am yet ready to show further, that they were no new Laws then, but the Fundamental Laws of England, derived from the first founding of the British and English Churches, as to the substance of them. To all my premises or particularities (as he calleth them) he hath been able to answer nothing, but leaves them to the Canon and Secular Lawyers to scuffle about them: but he utterly denyeth my Conclusion, what an absurdity that is, he is not ignorant.  
But alas! what doth the world know of the Municipal Laws of England, until we instruct them better? and what Opinion can Foreigners have of us, but what they learn from him and his Fellows? We acknowledge with Doctor Hammond, that Papal Usurpations were cast out of England in Henry the eights time: but we add, not by the Creation of new Laws, but by the vigorous execution of the ancient Laws, being first renewed and confirmed by himself. We acknowledge that Henry the eighth did finally shake of the yoke of Rome, which could not have been done, if there had been nothing to have been shaken of or reform: but this doth not hinder but that his Predecessors did attempt to shake it of long before, even at the first appearing of it; yea and did actually shake it of, for a time, in a great part.  
His fifth Objection is, that according to me the Laws made by Henry the eighth, did no more than the former Laws. Where did I say so? until he is able to show it me, (which I shall expect at the Greek Calends,) I shall score it up among his lesser Falsifications. And for his inference which he makes, that he never heard it pretended, that they did shake of the Roman yoke in part, or for a time, therefore they did it not; it showeth but his ignorance in the Laws and histories of his native Country. If he had perused them diligently, he might have observed how the Court of Rome and Crown of England, were long upon their Guards watching one another: and the one or the other gained or lost mutually, according to the Vigour of their present Kings or Popes, or according to the exigence of the times.  
His seventh Objection, that the like Laws to ours in England were made in the Papacy itself, but those could not be against the Pope's Headship of the Church: and his tenth Objection that then there never was a Papist Country in the world, because equivalent Laws to ours were made in France Spain Italy Sicily Gormany Poland, &c: and his answer to my demand [what law full jurisdiction could remain to the Pope in England, where such and such Laws had force?] The same that remains still to him in France Spain Italy where the like laws are in force, in his last paragraph; are a dish of unsavoury mushrooms, all sprung up from his own negligent mistake or wilful Falsification (let him choose whether he will) in confounding the Laws of Mortmain with the other Laws against the Pope's Usurpations; 
Vind. pa 71.  Which I distinguished exactly both at the beginning of that discourse [the Statute of Mortmain justified] and at the Conclusion [But to leave this Digression.] 
Vind. pa 74.   
But besides this gross error, there want not other inconsequences and fallacies in his discourse; as in his seventh Objection from the Pope's particular Headship of his own Church, to an Universal Headship over the Catholic Church, and from an Headship of order to a Monarchical Headship of power; and in his tenth Objection from [like laws] to the same Laws, from Laws made to Laws duly observed. We had Laws made against Non-conformists in England, will he conclude thence that we have▪ no Non-conformists in England? the Argument would hold better the Contrary way, Ex malis moribus bonae leges. And in his last Paragraph, from Coactive jurisdiction in the Exterior Court to jurisdiction purely Spiritual in the Court of Conscience; and from Coactive jurisdiction with the leave of the Prince to the same without Leave. We see all Roman Catholic Countries, do stint the Pope's Coactive jurisdiction over their Subjects more or less, according to their several Liberties, which they could not do at all, if he held it by Christ's own Ordination.  
His eighth Objection, that upon this new Law made by Henry the eighth, England stood at another distance then formerly from Rome; is a Fallacy non causae pro causa, when a false cause is assigned for a true cause. Our just Laws are not the right cause of our distance from Rome: but the Pope's unjust Censures, and that Character which some of our Countrymen give of us. But this distance is greater among the Populacy then between the Estates, who do not much regard the Pope's Censures either in making or observing of Leagues.  
To his ninth Objection in his order, and his last in my order, that this Position takes away the Question, and makes all the Controvertists in England on both sides talk in the air, because it makes the Pope to have had no Authority there to be cast out. I answer, I wish it did, but it doth not. The Pope had Authority there, and Authority usurped fit to be cast out, notwithstanding our former good Laws. But yet I must confess this Position doth much change the Question, from spiritual jurisdiction in the inner Court to Coactive jurisdiction in the exterior Court, and makes him and many other such Controvertists talk in the air, who dispute only about Headships and First Moverships, when the true Controversy lieth in point of Interest and profit.   

Sect. 4.  
That the Britannic Churches were ever exempted from foreign jurisdiction, for the first six hundred years, and so ought to continue.  
After I had showed the Equality of the Apostles, except only a Priority of Order; and that the Supremacy of power did not rest in any single Apostolical College; that national Patriarches were the highest Order constituted by the Apostles in the Church; and how some Patriarches came to be advanced above others, with the true dignity or Pre-eminence of Apostolical Churches: the sum of all the rest of this Section might be reduced to a Syllogism.  
Those Churches which were exempted from all foreign jurisdiction for the first 600 years, cannot be subjected to any foreign jurisdiction for the future against their own wills.  
But all the Britannic Churches were ever exempted from foreign jurisdiction for the first six hundred years.  
The Major Proposition was proved by me undeviably, out of the first General Council of Ephesus; to which Mr. Sergeant hath objected nothing. Next I proved the Minor▪ First by Prescription. Affirmanti incumbit probatio; The burden of the proof in Law resteth upon the Affirmer: but they are not able to show so much as one single act of jurisdiction, which ever any Bishop of Rome did in Brittaign for the first six hundred years. Secondly, I proved it from the Antiquity of the Britannic Church, which was ancienter than the Roman itself, and therefore could not be subject, to the Roman from the beginning. Thirdly, because the Britannic Churches sided with the Eastern Churches against the Roman, and therefore were not subject to the Roman. Fo●rthly, because they had their Ordinations ordinarily at home, which is an infallible sign of a free Church subject to no Foreign jurisdiction. Lastly because they renounced all Subjection to the Bishop of Rome. I am forced to repeat thus much to let the Reader see the contexture of my discourse, which Mr. Sergeant doth whatsoever he can to conceal, or at least to confound and disjoint.  
Out of this he picketh here and there what he pleaseth, First he pleadeth that my Title is the Vindication of the Church of England: but the Church of England can derive no title from the Britannic or Scottish Churches. He never read or quite forgetteth the State of the Question. I will help his memory. Let him read the Vindication [by the Church of England we understand not the English Nation alone, 
Vind. pa 24.  but the English dominion, including the British and Scotish or Irish Christians]. So at unawares he hath yielded the Bishoprics of Chester, Hereford, Worcester (for all these were Suffragans to Carleon), Wales, Cornwall, Ireland, Scotland with all the adjacent Lands, that is to say, two third parts of the English Dominion.  
Secondly, he pleadeth that for this many hundred years they acknowledged the Pope's Authority as well as the Church of England. I answer, that this will do him no good nor satisfy the General Council of Ephesus at all, which hath decreed expressly in the case of the Cyprian Prelates, and they Command the same to be observed in all Provinces, that no Bishop occupy another Province, which formerly and from the beginning was not under the power of him or his Predecessors, and if any do occupy another Province (that in this case) let him restore it, 
Concil. Ephes. part 1. Act. 7.  that the Canons of the Fathers be not slighted. But they who never exercised one Act of jurisdiction in the Britannic Island for the first 600 years, cannot pretend that it was under their power, in the time of the Council of Ephesus or long after. It was not for nothing that he concealed the words of the Council.  
Yet he asketh, what do the Scots concern the Church of England's Vindication? Do they not? Are not the Scots a part of the Britannic Lands, and so comprehended under the name of the Church of England in this Question? Besides he must know that I challenge some Interest among the Irish Scots, from whom I derive my Episcopal Orders. Against the Irish Ordination never any man had any pretence of Exception to this Day. The Irish were the ancient and principal Scots, and the Britannic Scots a Colony derived from them. That they are the ancient Scots, who did join with the Britons in not submitting to the See of Rome, I shall show him clearly from the Authority of Laurence, Successor to S. Austin in his Archbishopric, and the other English Bishops of that Age, in their Letter to the Bishops of Scotland, To conclude he took not only Care of the new Church collected of the English, 
Bede hist. Ec. lib. 2. ca 4.  but of the old Inhabitants of Britain, and also of the Scots who inhabit Ireland, the next Island to Britain. For assoon as he knew that their life and profession in their Country, was like that of the Britons in Brittany not Ecclesiastical etc. That is to say not Roman. He seeth I had some reason not to ●eave out the Scots.  
Besides the Britons the Scots and the Irish, I urged that [the great Kingdoms of Morcia and Northumberland were converted by the Scots, and had their Religion and Ordination first from the Scots, afterwards among themselves, without any foreign dependence, and so were as free as the Britons]. He saith all the force lieth in these words [without any Foreign dependence] which I obtrude ●pon them without any proof. His mistakes are infinite, my proof is Demonstrative, They who had their first Ordination from the Scots, and ever after were Ordained among themselves, never had any Ordination from the Bishop of Rome, and consequently were never subject to the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome: For it is a Maxim in the Law, and is most evident in the case of the Cyprian Bishops in the Council of Ephesus, that the right of ●urisdiction doth follow the right of Ordination. And if it were not so, yet what man in his right wits could Imagine, that the Scots who were the Converters, should renounce Subjection to the Bishop of Rome themselves, and teach their Converts the Mercians and Northumbrians to submit to the Bishop of Rome  
But if I had said no more▪ but only that they were without any foreign dependence, it had been enough on my part. It belongeth not to me to prove a Negative, and such a continued Negative as this is: but the burden of the proof resteth wholly upon him, both in reason and Law, to prove his Affirmative, that the Mercians and Northumbrians did depend upon the Bishop of Rome in those days, in point of practice, for Ordination and jurisdiction; which he is not able to do. What he addeth, that I said Ordination is nothing at all to jurisdiction, is for want of Understanding, because he is not able to distinguish between the right of Ordination, and the Act of Ordaining. We attribute to the Scots the Act of Ordaining, not a Superior right of Ordination.  
In the next place I urged, that [a world of British Christians stayed behind among the Saxon Conquerors, every where all over England, such whom they had no cause to fear for their power Activity or Influence upon others; which poor Conquered Christians had a right to the just Privileges of their Ancestors]. He would persuade us, First that all of them or all except some few fled into Wales or Cornwall. What to do? To be repacked there as herrings? Or like Chameleons to live upon the air and leave all the rest of the Kingdom desolate? It was not ten, or twenty, nor a hundred, nor a● thousand little Vessels, could bring over Saxons enough with their wives and Children and Servants, to plant the Kingdoms of England. We see daily, that the very Armies of such conquerors, do consist for the greater part of Natives, and that it is not their foreign Numbers, but their Military Skill and resolution which gaineth them the Victory. Look upon all the Kingdoms of the world, Italy, Spain, France, England, etc. and what are they but mixed Societies, of Foreigners and Natives, Conquerors and Conquered persons, now incorporated with little or no distinction, by long Tract of time. After the Norman Conquest, hundreds of English inhabited England for one Norman. In the beginning of the late Insurrection in Ireland, notwithstanding those great numbers which came over daily into Ireland and Scotland to seek for Plantations, for thirty or forty years together, yet there were ten Irish, for one English and Scotch▪ and yet we do not find that these Saxon wars were so bloody as the Irish wars, or that either they persecuted the persons of the Britons with Cruelty, or so much as demolished their Churches.  
But he supposeth, that if there were any such British Christians, yet they became subject to the Pope. I believe some of them were subject to the Pope as to the Bishop of their Mother Church, and all of them as to the Bishop of an Apostolical Church, that is, to be guided by his grave advise and direction: but I deny that ever the Saxon Bishops were subject to the Pope, as to an absolute Monarch by Christ's own ordination, or that the Pope enjoyed the Sovereign Patronage of the Saxon Church, or the Supreme Legislative judiciary or dispensative power over it. This the Saxon Kings and their Bishops under them ever enjoyed, as the Britons did before them: and this is all which our King's desire, or we claim for them. If he have any thing to say to this point, let him bring Authorities not words.  
He saith, This is all one as if some few men settling by accident in France, should pretend an exemption from the French Laws, and expect English Privileges. Nay, it is clear contrary, as if some French men coming into Britain, and planting and propagating there, should expect the British Privileges to their Posterity. So the Saxons planting in Britain, so soon as their Posterity was capable of them by becoming Christians, might justly claim the Liberties and Privileges of British Christians.  
I said [the Saxon Conquest gave them as good title to the Privileges as to the Lands of the Britons]. He styleth it, a rare reason, as if I meant that Ecclesiastical jurisdiction, were a thing of that nature to be won by the sword. Or rather as if he meant Coactive jurisdiction in the Exterior Court, and jurisdiction purely Spiritual which Christ left unto his Church, is all one. I do not mean that power purely Spiritual is to be won by the Sword: but I believe that exemtion from Coactive power in the exterior Court is to be won by the sword. So the Scots eased the Archbishop of York of the trouble of a great part of his Provinces So just conquerors may, and do often change the external Policy of the Church, for the public good.  
He bids me, show that the English Bishops were impowered by the British Bishops, or else let me confess that they could inherit no Privileges from them. I can show him that I myself was impowered, and did receive my Episcopal Ordination from the ancient Scotch Bishops by an uninterrupted Succession; And many English Bishops have received their orders mediately▪ or immediately from the British Bishops.  
I said most truly, that before he can allege the Authority of the Council of Sardica for Appeals to Rome, he must renounce the divine institution of the Papacy, or at least the divine right of the Bishop of Rome to the Papacy: because that Canon submitted it to the good pleasure of the Fathers, and grounded it upon the Memory of St. Peter, not the Institution of Christ. The reason of this Consequence is most evident. For the Council of Sardica would not, nor could have submitted that which is the Pope's right, by Christ's own Ordination, to the good pleasure of the Fathers, whether he should have it or not; nor would have assigned their respect to the Memory of Saint Peter, for a ground of that for which they had the Commandment of Christ: But the Council of Sardica did submit the Pope's right to receive Appeals, to the good pleasure of the Fathers, Placetne? doth it please you that we honour the memory of St. Peter? Therefore, they did not hold this right of the Pope to receive Appeals, to be due to the Pope by Christ's own Ordinance or Commandment: This he is pleased to call, a flat Falsification of the Council, there being not a word in it, either concerning Papal power itself or its institution, but concerning Appeals only. I am grown pretty well acquainted with his Falsifications. Did I say there was any thing in the Council, concerning the Papacy or Institution of it? If I did, let him tell us where and when, or else it is his own Falsification. But by his own Confession, there is something in the Council concerning Appeals to the Pope, and this is submitted by the Council to the good pleasure of the Fathers, and no higher ground assigned for it, than the respect to the Memory of St. Peter: yet this right of receiving Appeals is made by him and all his Partakers, an Essential Branch of Papal power. Therefore if he and his Partakers say true, the Council of Sardica did submit an Essential Branch of Papal Power, (or Papal power in part,) to the good pleasure of the Fathers; which is as much as to say they held it not to be of divine Institution. By this time I hope he understandeth my meaning better.  
He presumeth, that some British Bishops sat in Council of Sardica; it may be Athanasius intimateth as much. He presumeth that they assented to the Sardican Canon about Appeals. It may be, or it may not be. I should rather assent to their voting to acquit Athanasius, who testifieth of them that they were right to the Nicene Faith. 
Epist. ad jovinia.  But surely among all the Subscibers' in the Sardican Council, there is not one British Bishop named. And in the Synodall Letters of the Council itself, wherein they reckon all the Provinces, Britain is not named. But what is the right of receiving Appeals, to an Universal Monarchy, or the decree of a Council, to Christ's own Ordination? If we would be contented to abrogate our old Laws, and give the Bishop of Rome leave to execute that power which the Sardican Fathers did give him, he would scorn it, and much more their manner of giving it, 
Concil. Sard. cap. 3.  Si vobis placet; if it please you, or of it seem good to your Charity let us honour the Memory of St. Peter; as both the Latin and the Greek Edition have it.  
I said that the Council of Sardica was no General Council after the Eastern Bishops were departed, not out of any ill will to Athanasius, or favour to the Arrians (as for Arrianisme, the Sardican Fathers did no more than the Nicene had done before them): but out of another Consideration, because the presence of the five great Patriarches with their respective Bishops, or at least the greater part of them, was ever more held necessary to the being of a General Council; as Bellarmine himself confesseth that the seventh Synod judged the Council of Constantinople against Images to have been no General Council, 
Bel. de Con. li. 1. ca 17.  because it had not Patriarches enough. If the Council of Sardica had been a General Council, why do St. Gregory the great, Isiodore and Venerable Bede, quite omit it out of the number of General Counsels? Why did St. Austin, Alypius, and the African Fathers slight it? And which is more than all this, why do the Eastern Church, not reckon it among their seven General Counsels, nor the western Church, among their eight first General Counsels? To Conclude, why did the English Church, leave the Sardican Council out of the number of General Counsels, in the Synod of Hedtfelde in the year 680▪ and embrace only these for General Counsels until that day, The Council of Nice, the first of Constantinople, the first of Ephesus, the Council of Chalcedon and the second of Chalcedon? 
Apud Spelm. an. 680. p. 169.  Here he may see a plain reason, why I say the Council of Sardica was never incorporated into the English Laws. I would know, whether he or I be of the old English Religion in this point; The five First General Counsels were incorporated into the Law of England: but the Council of Sardica was none of them, Therefore no General Council. I have given him a further account concerning this Council Sect. 1, c. 7. to which I refer him.  
I said, and I said most truly, that the Canons of the Sardican Council touching Appeals were never received in England, nor incorporated into our English Laws. For proof hereof, I bring him an evident demonstration out of the Fundamental Law of England, as it is recorded in that famous Memorial of Clarendon: All Appeals in England must proceed regularly from the Archdeacon to the Bishop, from the Bishop to the Archbishop, and if the Archbishop failed to do justice, the last complaint must be to the King, to give Order for redress. Our Ancestors had not so much respect for Pope julius, nor thought appeals to Rome any honour to the Memory of St. Peter.  
I said, [the Canon of the Council of Sardica, was contradicted after by the Great Council of Chalcedon]. He rejuneth that I neither thought the words worth citing, nor the Canon where the Abrogation of the Sardican Canon is found worth mentioning. Pardon me, I said nothing of Abrogation, but I did say it contradicted it: and for proof of the truth of what I said, take the very words of two Canons of that Council, 
Concil. Chalc. par. 2. Act. 14. cap. 9  But if a Clerk have a cause against his own Bishop, or against another Bishop, let him be judged by the Synod of the Province: but if a Bishop or a Clerk have a Complaint against the Metropolitan of the same Province, let him repair either to the Primate of the Diocese, or the See of their royal City of Constantinople, aend let him be judged there. We see every Primate, that is to say, every Patriarch in general in his own Diocese or Patriarchate, and the Patriarch of Constantinople in particular out of his own Diocese, is equalled by the Council of Chalcedon to the Bishop of Rome. The same in effect is decreed in the seventeenth Canon, that if there shall happen any Difference concerning the Possessions of the Churches, it shall be lawful to them who affirm themselves to be grieved, to sue before the Holy Synod of the Province: but if any man be grieved by his Metropolitan, let him be judged by the Primate of the Diocese, or by the holy See of Constantinople.  
I have read those silly Evasions, which your greatest Scholars are forced to make use of, for answers to these downright Canons. Sometimes by Primate of the Diocese (which signifieth all Patriarches) they understand and the Pope. Do men use such improper expressions, which no man can understand, in penning of Laws? Is it not a great Condiscension for the Visible Monarch of all Christendom, to stoop to so mean a Title as the Primate of one single Diocese. But alas, it will do him no good! For if it were taken in this sense, it were the most unjust Canon in the world, to deprive all Patriarches of their patriarchal jurisdiction, except the Patriarch of Rome and Constantinople. The Council which is so careful to preserve the Bishop his right, and the Metropolitan his right, could not be so careless to destroy patriarchal right; or the Patriarches themselves, who were present at the making of this Canon, so stupid to join in it.  
At other times they tell us that this is to be understood only of the first Instance, not of Appeals. This is weaker and weaker What hath a Metropolitan to do with private causes of the first instance, out of his own Bishopric? What have the Patriarches of Rome and Constantinople to do, to judge causes of the first Instance in other Patriarchates? The case is clear: if any man be grieved by his Bishop he may appeal to his Metropolitan and a Synod; and if any man be grieved by his Metropolitan he may appeal to his Patriarch. And if this absurd sense (which they Imagine) were true, yet the Bishop of Constantinople might receive Appeals, from all parts of the world, as well as the Bishop of Rome. Let them wind, and wrest, and turn things as they can, they shall never be able to reconcile the Papal Pretensions, with the Council of Chalcedon.  
I have neither changed my mind nor my note, concerning Eleutherius his Letter to King Lucius; I did, I do esteem it to be of dubious Faith. So much I intimated [if it be not counterfeit]. So much he intimated [as much as we have Records in our Histories] Is it necessary with him to inculcate the same doubt over and over, so often as we may take occasion? Thus far then we are of accord: but in the rest we differ wholly. He is positive, 
Down Derry p. 133.  as much as we have Records, the Pope's Authority doth appear: I am as positive, as much as we have Records, the King's Authority doth appear. For if those Records be true, Eleutherius left the Legislative part to King Lucius and his Bishops. This was enough to answer him.  
He addeth, though our Faith relieth on immediate Tradition for its certain Rule and not upon Fragments of old Authors, that is in plain English, upon his bare word without any Authority. How should a man prove ancient Tradition but by Authors? Yet after all this flourish, he produceth us not one old Author but St. Prosper, a stranger to our affairs, and him to no purpose● who saith only what he heard in Italy, That Pope Celestine sent St. German in his own stead to free the Britons from Pelaginisme, and converted the Scots by Palladius. If all this were as true as Gospel, it signifieth just nothing. I have showed formerly that there is no Act of jurisdiction in it, but only of the Key of Knowledge. He rejoineth, that he relied on these words [vice sua] in his own stead, which showeth that it belonged to his Office to do it. Why should it not? The Key of Order belongeth to a Bishop, as well as the Key of jurisdiction: And more especially to the Bishop of an Apostolical Church, as Pope Celestine was, and in such a case as that was (the Pelagian Controversy) to testify the Apostolical Tradition; he was bound by his Office to do it, and he trusted S. German to do it in his place. All this is nothing to the purpose; there is no Act of jurisdiction in the Case, but of Charity and Devotion. Yet if it were not altogether impertinent to the purpose we have in hand, I should show him that there is ten times better ground to believe that it was done by a French Synod, then by Pope Celestine; not out of an obscure Author, but out of Authentic undoubted Histories; as Constantius in the Life of S. German, Venerable Bede, Matthew Westminster and many others. Is it not strange, that they being so much provoked, are not able to produce a proof of one Papal Act of jurisdiction done in Britain for the first six hundred years?  
Here he catcheth hold at a saying of mine, which he understandeth no more than the Man in the Moon, that [all other rights of jurisdiction, do follow the right of Ordination] which he taketh as though I meant to make Ordination itself to be an Act of jurisdiction, though I deny it and distinguish it from it. To make the Reader to understand it, we must distinguish between actual Ordination, and a right to ordain. Actual Ordination, where there was no precedent Obligation for that person to be ordained, by that Bishop, doth imply no jurisdiction at all: but if there was a precedent right in the ordainer to ordain that man, and a precedent Obligation in the person Ordained to be ordained by that Bishop, than it doth imply all manner of jurisdiction, suitable to the Quality of the ordainer; as if he were a Patriarch all patriarchal jurisdiction, if he were a Metropolitan all Metropolitical jurisdiction, if he were a Bishop all Episcopal jurisdiction. And the Inference holdeth likewise on the Contrary side, that where there is no right precedent to Ordain, nor Obligation to be ordained, there is no jurisdiction followeth: but I showed out of our own Histories, and out of the Roman Registers so far as they are set down by Platina, that the Bishop of Rome had no right to ordain our British Primates, but that they were ordained at home; and therefore the Bishop of Rome could have no jurisdiction over them.  
I said no more of Phocas but this, that [the Popes pretences were more from Phocas then St. Peter.] He referreth me to his answer to Doctor Hammond. 
Pa. 1. Sect. 6.  And I refer him to Doctor Hammond for a reply, as Impertinent to my present business.  
When I did first apply my thoughts to a sad Meditation upon this Subject, I confess ingenuously, that which gave me the most trouble was to satisfy myself fully about the Popes Patriarchate: but in conclusion, that which had been a cause of my trouble, proved a means of my ●inall Satisfaction. For seeing it is generally confessed that the Bishop of Rome was a Patriarch, I concluded that he could not be a Spiritual Monarch. The reasons of my Resolution I have set down, and received no answer: Yet it shall not seem irksome to me to repeat them, as desiring nothing but the discovery of the truth. First I argue thus, The Sovereign Government and the Subordinate Government, of the same person in the same Society, or body Politic or Ecclesiastic, is inconsistent: But the Pope's pretended Monarchy or Supremacy of power over the whole Church, and his patriarchal Dignity in the same Church, are a Sovereign and Subordinate Government of the same person in the same body Ecclesiastic. The reason of the Major is because Sovereign power is single of one person or Society: but this subordinate power is conjoint of fellow Patriarches. Sovereign Power is Universal, but this subordinate power is particular. And therefore as a Quadrangle cannot be a Triangle, nor a King a Sheriff of a Shire or a Precedent of a Province within his own Kingdom: so neither can the same person be an Universal Monarch and a particular Patriarch.  
Secondly, the Spiritual Sovereignty of the Roman Bishop is pretended to be by divine right, his patriarchal power is confessedly by humane right: but a Spiritual Sovereignty by divine right and an inferior dignity by humane right are inconsistent. As it is absurd to say that God should make a man a Prince, and after the people make him a Peer: or God should give him a Greater Dignity, and afterwards the people confer a less upon him.  
Thirdly, a Sovereignty above the Canons, besides the Canons, against the Canons, to make them, to abrogate them, to suspend them with a Non obstante, to dispense with them at pleasure, where the Canon gives no dispensative power. and a Subjection to the Canons to be able to do nothing against them are inconsistent▪ But su●h a Sovereign Power is above the Canons, and such a patriarchal power is subject to the Canons Therefore they are inconsistent.  
All the answer he offereth to these two Instances; the one that Bishop Usher was at once Bishop of Armagh, and as such the Bishop of Derries superior. I answer, first he mistaketh much, The Primacy of Ireland and the Archbishopric of Armagh are not two di●●inct dignities, but one and the self same dignity: but the Monarchical power of the Pope by divine right, and his patriarchal power by Humane right, are two distinct dignities. Secondly, the Primate of Ireland is not endowed with Monarchical power: but all the difficulty here lieth in the Conjunction of Monarchical power and Subordinate power. His other Instance, must a person leave of to be Master of his own Family▪ because he is made King, and his Authority extendeth over all England. I answer, first his Argument is a transition into another kind, or an excursion from one kind of power to another; from Political power in the Commonwealth to an Economical power in the Family. Secondly it is one thing to make an inferior person a King, and another thing to make a King a Constable, or to make Sovereignty and Subordination consist together. When a King doth discharge the place of a General of an Army he acquireth no new dignity or power or place, no man calleth him my lord General; but he doth it as a King by his Kingly power, to which no higher or larger power can be added: but the Bishop of Rome did not, doth not exercise patriarchal power, by virtue of his Monarchy by divine Ordination, but by humane right; first by Custom or prescription, and then by authority of the Council of Nice. All the world seeth and acknowledgeth that the Bishop of Rome hath more power in his Bishopric than he hath out of it in the rest of his Province; and more power in his Province, than he hath out of it in his Patriarchate, and more power in his own Patriarchate, than he hath in another's Patriarchate: but if he had a Sovereignty of Power and jurisdiction by Christ's own Ordination, he should have the same power every where; if he had a Sovereignty of Power and jurisdiction by Christ's own Ordination, than all patriarchal power should flow from him, as from the Original Fountain of all Ecclesiaasticall honour. But the Contrary is most apparent, that all the Patriarches, even the Roman himself, did owe their patriarchal power to the Customs of the Church, and Canons of the Fathers. These are the reasons why I conceive Monarchical Power and patriarchal power, to be inconsistent in one and the same person: But the Pope was confessedly a Patriarch, therefore no Monarch.  
The next thing which cometh to be observed, is his Exceptions to Dionothus the learned Abbot of Bangor his answer to Austin, professing Canonical Obedience to the Archbishop of Caerleon in his own name and the name of the British Church, and disclaiming all Obedience except of Brotherly love, to the Bishop of Rome. His first exception was the naming of the Bishop of Rome [Pope] without any Addition of Name or place, contrary to the use of those times. For answer I committed him and his Friend Bellarmine together, When the word Pope is put alone the Bishop of Rome only is to be understood, 
Bell. li. 2. de Rom. Pont. cap. 31.  as appeareth out of the Council of Chalcedon [the most blessed and Apostolical man the Pope doth command us this,] without adding Leo or Rome or the City of Rome or any other thing. He sleighteth Bellarmine and rebuketh me for folly, to think that Catholic writers cannot disagree, and answereth the Council that thought the word [Pope] be alone without Addition, Yet which is equivalent, the Comitant Circumstances sufficiently indigitate the person. For the words were spoken by Boniface the Pope's Vicegerent. As if there were not the same indigitating Circunstances here as well as there, the words being spoken by Austin the Pope's Legate and Vicar as well as Boniface, in the name of Pope Gregory to the Britons, which were answered here by Dinoth.  
His second exception to Dinoths Testimony is, that there was no such Bishopric as Caerleon in those days, the See being removed from Caerleon to Menevia or S. David's, fifty years before this. That it was removed before this I acknowledge, but how long before this is uncertain. Some Authors make S. Gregory and S. David, to have died on one Day s●me years after this meeting. And it is an usual thing for Bishoprics to have two names, as the Bishopric of Ossory and Kilkenny is the same Bishopric: ●he Bishopric of Kerry and Ardfert is the same Bishopric. The See of Derry was long removed from Ardstrath to Derry, before it was commonly called the Bishopric of Derry; and so was Lindesfern to Durham. I produced two witnesses for this very Place of Caerleon, that it still retained the old name. The one the British History, Then died David the most holy Archbishop of Caerleon in the City of Menevia. And yet it is thought, that the first removal of the See was made by Dubritius to Landaff, and after from Landaffe to Menevia by St. David, at whose death it was styled the Archbishopric of Caerleon. The other witness was Geraldus Cambrensis, we had at Menevia five and twenty Archbishops of Caerleon successively whereof St. David was the First. He takes no notice of the first Testimony, and puffes at the second and sleights it: 
p. 504.  but answereth nothing Material, but that which will cut the throat of his cause, Had Caerleons' Archbishops (saith he) only for some conveniency, resided at Menevia, and the right of jurisdiction still belonged to Caerleon, it might more easily be conceived feasible. Take notice then that the Bishops of Caerleon did remove from a populous City in those days, (as Caerlegion or the City of the Roman Legion was) to Menevia only for the conveniency of a solitary life and contemplative devotion; and it is more than probable that the active part of his jurisdiction was still executed at Caerleon. The See is changed so soon as the Church is builded: but the City will require longer time, to be fitted for Inhabitants and furnished. All that he opposeth to this, is that it was ordinarily called the Bishopric of Menevia. Who douhteth of it? but that doth not prove that it was not also called Caerleon. It was First the Bishopric of Caerleon alone, than the Bishopric of Caerleon or Menevia indifferently, afterward the Bishopric of Menevia or St. David's indifferently, and now the Bishopric of St. David's only. He carpeth at the name of Caerleon upon uske. Why so? why not as well Caerleon upon uske, as Kingston upon Hull, or Newark upon Trent, or Newcastle upon Tine? Where there are several Cities of one name, as there were Caerlegions or Cities of Roman Legions in Britain, it is ever usual to give them such a mark of Distinction.  
But why doth he wrangle about names and persecute an innocent paper after this manner? The thing is sure enough, that there was one Dinoth a learned Abbot of Bangor at that time, who did oppose Austin, and stand for the jurisdiction of his own Archbishop of Caerleon or Menevia, choose you whether. Thus much he himself acknowledgeth in this very Paragraph, citing out of Pitseus, a book of this very Dinoths, the title whereof was Defensorium jurisdictionis Sed●s Menevensis; 
p. 544.  an Apology for the jurisdiction of the Seeof Menevia. And against whom should this Apology be, but against Austin and the Romans? no men else did oppose the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Menevia. 
Bede  With this agreeth that of Venerable Bede, 
Eccl. Hist. l. 2. c. 2.  That Austin by the help of King Ethelbert, called to a Conference (or Council) the Bishops and Doctors of the greatest and nearest Province of the Britons: and began to persuade them with brotherly Admonitions to hold Catholic peace with him, to undertake the Common work of preaching to the Pagans, for they observed not Easter in due time, and did many other things contrary to the Unity of the Church. The end of this first Assembly was, They would give no assent, neither to the prayers nor exhor●ations, nor reprehensions of Austin and his fellows, but preferred their own Traditions before all others throughout the Church. And among all their Traditions, there was none which they held more tenaciously, than this inserted in this Manuscript, that is the Independent jurisdiction of the British Primate, which they never deserted till after the Norman Conquest. To maintain the Independence of their own Primate, is as much as to disclaim obedience to the Pope.  
But this is clearer in their resolution after the second Synod, whereat were seven British Bishops and very many learned men, especially of the most noble Monastery of Bangor, whereof that time Dinoth was Abbot; who gave this final answer to Augustine's three demands, mentioned here by Mr. Serjeant, At illi nihil ●orum se facturos, neque illum pro Archiepiscopo habituros esse respondebant: They answered they would do none of them, nor hold him for an Archbishop. Here we see Dinoth was Abbot at that time; Dinoth was present at that Council, and all the Britons did not only reject those three propositions (which he acknowledgeth): but did moreover in renouncing Austin, disclaimme St. Gregory's Authority over them, whose Legate he was. What is this less than Dinoths Manuscript?  
The author of the old British History called Brutus, relateth this answer of the Britons thus; Se Caerleonensi Archiepiscopo obedire voluisse, Augustino autem Romano Legato omnino noluisse: That they would obey the Archbishop of Cae●leon but they would not obey Austin the Roman Legate. Here he hath express testimony of their adhering to their British Primate, and their renouncing Papal Authority, and lastly of the very name of the Archbishop of Caerleon at that day. To the same purpose Grai●s in Scala Cronica, and Grocelinus in his greater History are cited by Caius de Antiquit: Acad. Cantab.  
With them agreeth Geoffry of Monmouth who saith there were at least one and twenty hundred Monks in the Monastery of Bangor, 
DeOrig & gest. Brit. li. 8. ca 4.  who did all live by the Labour of their own hands, and their Abbot was called Dinoth, marveilously learned in the liberal Arts, who showed to Austin (requiring subjection from the British Bishops, and persuading them to undertake with him the Common labour of preaching,) by divers reasons, that they did owe him no Subjection, nor to preach to their enemies. Seing they had an Arch prelate of their own etc. And a little after, Ethelbert King of the Kentishmen when he see the Britons did disdain to subject themselves to Austin, and to despise his preaching, stirred up the Saxon Kings to collect a great Army against Bangor, to destroy Dinoth the Abbot, and the other Clerks of that Monastery, who had despised Austin. This is the very same in effect with Dinoths Welsh manuscript: and there fore it was no welsh Ballad first made in Edward the sixths' time, by some English Schoolmaster to teach welsh boys English, as Mr. Serjeant Vapoureth.  
With him agreeth Giraldus Cambrensis, But yet always until, 
Itin. Camb. l. 2. c, 1.  Wales, was fully subdued which was done by Henry the first King of the English, the Bishops of Wales were consecrated by the Archbishop of Menevia. And he (the Archbishop of Menevia) in like manner was consecrated by others, as being his Suffragans, without making any Profession of Subjection at all to another Church. They all agree in this, the Britons were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, all ways ordained at home, independent upon any foreign Prelate, 
Bede Ec Hist. li. 2. c. 1.  ought no subjection to Rome. And there fore it is no great wonder, if Pope Gregory did not know when he was the favourite both of the Pope and people, not long before his own promotion to the Papacy, whether the Islanders of Britain were Pagans or Christians.  
To the same purpose speaketh Nicolas Trevet, who having commended this Dinoth for a learned and a prudent man, he addeth, that Austin meeting him did demand that they should perform subjection to him, as a Legate sent into this Land by the Pope and Court of Rome; and demanded further that he would help him in preaching: but he denied the one and the other. Still Subjection is denied. With these, Baleus writing of Dinoth and the life of Austin in Sr. Henry spelman, and all our Antiquaries do agree exactly. And none of our Historiographers that I know, do disagree from it in the least, who write upon that subject, though some set it down more fully than others. judge now Reader of Mr. Sergeants Knowledge or Ingenuity, who telleth the so Confidently that the right of Subjection never came into play: and when I said the British Clergy, did renounce all obedience to the Bishop of Rome, citing [Bede and all others], telleth me so confidently that I belied Bede and all our Historiographers at once. I challenge him to name but one Historiographer, who affirmeth the contrary to that which all these do affirm: if he be not able (as he is not) I might safely say without ask him leave, that it striketh the Question dead.  
His third Exception, that it appeareth not that Sr. Henry spelman found any other Antiquity in that Welsh Manuscript worth mentioning, is so dull and unsignificant a piece, that I will neither trouble myself nor the Reader with it. And such like are his other Objections, which helpresseth not but toucheth gently: the Heads of them will not merit a repetition, having been answered already by Doctor Hammond.  
But when he is baffled in the cause, he hath a Reserve, that Venerable Bede, and Gildas, and Fox in his Acts and Monuments, do brand the Britons for wicked men, making them as good as Atheists: Of which Gang if this Dinoth were one, he will neither wish the Pope such Friends, nor envy them to the Protestants. What needed this, when he hath got the worst of the cause, to revenge himself like a Pinece with a stink? We read no other Character of Dinoth, but as of a pious learned and prudent man. If Gildas, or Bede have spoken any thing to the prejudice of the Britons, it was not intended against the whole Nation but against particular persons, There were St. david's, St. Dubricius' St. Thela●s's St. Oudoceus' and Dinoths as well as such persons as are intended by Gildas or Beda. What have they said more of the Britons, than God himself and his Prophets have spoken of his own people, or more than the Saxons have said one of another, or more than maybe retorted upon any Nation in Europe? Have Gildas or Beda said more of the Birions, then St. Bernard and others have said of the Irish? and yet Ireland was deservedly called the Island of Saints. The Question is whether the British Church, did ever acknowledge any Subjection to the Bishop of Rome. Let him adorn this Sparta, and leave other impertinencies.   

Sect. V.  
That the King and Church of England had sufficient Authority to withdraw their obedience from Rome.  
The sixth Chapter of my Vindication comprehended my fourth ground consisting of these three particulars. That the King and Church of England had sufficient Authority to reform the Church of England; That they had sufficient Grounds for doing it, And that they did it with due moderation. His Rejoinder to this my fourth ground is divided into three Sections, whereof this is the first. Whatsoever he prateth in this Section of my shuffing away the whole Question, by balking the Bishop of Rome's divine right to his Sovereignty of power, to treat of his patriarchal right, which is humane; is first vain, For I always was and still am ready to join Issne with him concerning the Bishop of Rome's divine right to a Monarchical power in the Church; saving always to myself and my cause this advantage, That a Monarchy and a Patriarchate of the same person in the same Body Ecclesiastical are inconsistent. And this right being saved, I shall more willingly join issue with him about the Pope's Monarchy, then about his Patriarchate. Secondly as it is vain, so it is altogether impertinent, for my Ground is this, that a Sovereign Prince hath power within his own Dominions for the public good, to change any thing in the external Regiment of the Church, which is not of divine Institution: but the Pope's pretended Patronage of the English Church, and his Legislative judiciary and dispensative power, in the exterior Courts of the same Church, do concern the external Regiment of the Church, and are not of divine Institution. Here the Hinge of our Controversy doth move, without encombring ourselves at all with patriarchal Authority. Thirdly I say, that this discourse is not only vain and extravagant, but is likewise false; The Pope's Protopatriarchall power, and the Authority of a Bishop of an Apostolical Church as the keeper of Apostolical Traditions deposited in that Church, are the fairest flowers in his Garland. Whatsoever power he pretendeth to, over the whole Church of Christ, above a Primacy of Order, is altogether of humane right; and the Application of that Primacy to the Bishop of Rome is altogether of humane right. And whatsoever he presumeth of the Universal Tradition of the Christian Church, or the Notion which the former and present world, and we ourselves before the Reformation had of the Papacy, that is, of the Divine right of the Pope's Sovereignty, is but a bold, rattling, groundless brag. I did and do affirm, that the Pope hath quitted his Patriarchichall power above a thousand years since; not explicitly, by making a formal Resignation of it, but implicitly, by assuming to himself a power which is inconsistent with it.  
I was contented to forbear further disputing about patriarchal rights, upon two Conditions; one that he should not presume that the Pope is a Spiritual Monarch, without proving it. The other that he should not attempt to make patriarchal Privileges, to be Royal Prerogatives. This by one of his peculiar Idiotisms he calleth Bribing of me. If he had had, so much Civility in him, he might rather have interpreted it a gentle forewarning of him, of two Errors which I was sure he would Commit. After all his Bravadoes, all that he hath pretended to prove, is but a Headship, a First Movership, a Chief Governourship, about which we have no Difference with them: and all the proof he bringeth even of that, is a bold presumption that there is such an immediate Tradition. There is not so much as a national Tradition, for those Branches of Papal power which we have rejected, and much less for the divine right of them. And if there were such a Particular Tradition, yet wanting both perpetuity and Universality, we deny that it is a sufficient proof of any right. This and the Privilege to receive Appeals, which is a Protopatriachall Privilege, is all he produceth.  
If he would know what a Spiritual Monarch is, let him consult with Sanders de Visibili Monarchia, and Bellarmine in his first book de Pon●fice Romano. But he is quite out of his aim, who knoweth no mean between a flat Tyrant and an Ordinary Chief Governor. Upon these Terms a Precedent of a Council, a Master of a College, a Major of a Corporation should be so many Monarches. I have showed him what are those Branches of Sovereign Monarchical Power which the Popes have Usurped, and when each Usurpation did begin, (the first of them about 1100. years after Christ,) with the Opposition that was made unto them by the King and Kingdom of England. If he will speak to the purpose, let him speak to these in particular, and trouble us no more with his Chief Governourships, or hold his peace for ever. All the Controversy between them and us is in point of Interest, and the external Regiment of the Church, which is due to every Christian Sovereign in his own Kingdom. It is not we, but they who have changed their Governor.  
He would fain persuade us if he could, that no Catholic will believe that a Patriarch is dependent on a King in Ecclesiastical affairs: yet he himself hath confessed formerly, that they hold that every good King is to take Order to see Ecclesiastical Grievances remedied, 
Sect. 3. pa. 52●  and the Canons of the Church observed. Then Patriarches are not altogether independent upon Kings in Ecclesiastical affairs, if a King be bound to see that a Patriarch execute the Canons, and see patriarchal Grievances remedied. Sovereign Princes have founded Patriarchates, and confirmed Patriarchates, and conferred Patriarchates, and taken away Patriarchates, still here is some dependence. Gregory the Great was a Patriarch and a Pope: yet he acknowledged, that he ought due Subjection to the Law of Mauritius in an Ecclesiastical affair; I being subject to your Command have transmitted your Law to be published, 
Greg. Ep. l. 2. Ep. 61.  through divers parts of the world: And because the Law itself is not pleasing to Almighty God, I have expressed my Opinion thereof to my Lords. Wherefore I have performed my duty on both sides, in yielding Obedience to the Emperor, and no● concealing what I thought for God. But Mr. Sergeants reason is silly beyond all degrees of comparison; Otherwise St. Peter could not preach at Rome if Nero were a King, nor St. james at Jerusalem without unkinging Herod. See what a doughty Argument he hath brought. Apostles, or Patriarches, or Bishops, or Priests may perform the Ordinance of Christ, notwithstanding the Prohibition of Pagan Emperors and Kings: therefore they are independent upon them, and owe no Subjection or Obedience to any Kings, Christian or pagan. Yes Sr. although they owe them only passive Obedience in that, yet they owe them active Obedience to their other lawful Commands, even in Ecclesiastical affairs.  
But now he saith, he will give me fair Law. Put the case Papal Government had not been of Divine, but only of Humane Institution, yet it ought not to have been rejected, unless the abuses had been irremediable. I allow him to give law, and shuffle, and cut, and use what expressions he pleaseth: yet I used but an innocent allusion to the soaling of a Bowl, and it is thrice cast in my teeth. But for his fair law I thank him, I will take no Law from him but what I can win myself. He would be glad with all his Heart, to have but a good pretence of Humane Institution, for those Branches of Papal power, which are really controverted between us: but I deny him all manner of Institution both divine and Humane, and have showed that they are but upstart Usurpations of the Popes themselves, after 1100. years, and wanting lawful Prescription even in these last ages, which ought to be plucked up as weeds, so soon as they are discovered, and to be removed before all other things, by those who are in Authority; Ante omnia spoliatus restitui debet. And here he is at us again with his often repeated and altogether mistaken case; 
Mart. Ep. l. 1. Epig. 46.  which hence forward I shall vouchsafe no other answer to, but pass by it with a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
He demanded, whether I would Condescend to the Rejection of Monarchy, or extirpation of Episcopacy, for the misgovernment of Princes or Prelates? I answered [No;] We fancy not their Method, who cannot prune a tree except they pluck it ●p root and Branch: but I gave him three reasons why this could not advantage his cause. First, never any such abuses as these were objected to Princes or Prelates in England; Secondly, we desire not the extirpation of the Papacy, but the reduction of it to the Primitive Constitution. Thirdly; Monarchy and Episcopacy are of divine Institution, so is not Papal Sovereignty of jurisdiction. To the first he saith nothing, but by way of Recrimination, the most ignoble kind of answering, especially when he himself cannot but condemn them in his own Conscience, for notorious Fictions of Cretian Minotaures: But these abuses which we complain of, are the proper subject of the next Section.  
He is here pleased to relate a pretty story of the late Archbishop of Canterbury, that he confessed himself to lein a Schism, in a private discourse (I warrant it was private enough, without either witness or parties) as this Author was told by a very grave person, whose Candour he hath no reason to suspect. And why doth this grave person appear in a Vizard without a name, or appear after the party's death, that durst not have said it in his life-time, and for fear to be detected now telleth us it was in private? And when all is done, it is ten to one this worthy person (if he be in rerum natura) is an utter enemy, and of another Communion. We have had many abominable lies spread abroad in the world, upon the bare Testimony of some such single Adversary; as the Apostasy of Bishop King, the Defection of King Charles, the hopes they had of my Lord of S●rafford; when all that knew my Lord of Strafford and that witness, knew right well he never did in the presence of any other, nor ever durst offer to him any discourse of that nature.  
To the second he answereth, that we have already extirpated the Papacy out of England. No, we have only cast out seven or eight Branches of Papal jurisdiction in the exterior Court; which Christ or his Apostles never challenged, never exercised, never meddled withal; which the Church never granted, never disposed. He might still for us enjoy his Protopatriarchate, and the dignity of an Apostolical Bishop, and his Primacy of Order, so long as the Church thought fit to continue it to that See, if this would content him.  
To my third reason he excepteth. If Monarchy be of Divine Institution, the Venetians and the Hollanders are in a sad case. I am glad when I find any thing in him that hath but a resemblance of matter, more than wind and empty words, although they weigh nothing when they come to be examined. The Venetians and Hollanders may be in a sad Condition, in the Opinion of such rash Censurers as himself is, who have learned their Theology and Politics but by the halves. Who taught him to argue from the Position of one lawful form of Government, to the Denial of another? All lawful Forms of Government are warranted by the Law of Nature, and so have their Institution from God in the Law of Nature; The Powers that be are ordained of God, 
Rom. 13. 1.  whether they be Monarchical, or Aristocratical, or democratical, Man prepareth the Body, God infuseth the Soul of Power, which is the same in all Lawful Forms.  
But though all lawful Forms of Government be warranted by the law of nature, yet not all in the same Degree of Eminency. There is but one soul in the body, one Sun in the heaven, one Master in a Family, and anciently one Monarch in each Society: all the first Governors were Kings. The soul of Sovereign Power is the same in all Forms, but the Organ is more apt to attain its end in one Form then another; in Monarchy then in Aristocracy or Democracy. And we say God and Nature do always intend that which is best. Thus it is in the Law of Nature, which is warrant sufficient for any form of Government: but in the Positive Law of God, he never instituted or authorised any form but Monarchy.  
In the last Paragraph, where I say that the Pope's Headship of jurisdiction, is not of divine Institution, he excepteth, that it is my bare saying, and my old ●rick to say over again the very point in dispute between us. If this be the very point in dispute between us (as it is indeed), it is more shame for him who letteth the very point in dispute alone, and never offereth to come near it, especially having made such loud brags, that he would charge the Crime of Schism upon the Church of England with undeniable Evidence, and prove the Pope's Headship of jurisdiction or Power; by a more ample clear and continued Title, than any right of Law or Humane Ordinances can offer. Quid tanto dignum tulit hic promise or hia●u?  
As for my part I know my Obligation, whilst I am upon the defensive to make good my ground: and when it is my turn to assault, I shall discharge my duty. If he have any thing to say to the Huguenots of France, they are at age to answer him themselves; Our Controversy is only concerning the Church of England.   

SECT. 6.  
That the King and Church of England, had sufficient grounds to separate from the Court of Rome.  
I had reason to wonder, not at our Grounds but their silence, that having so long, so often called for our grounds of Separation, and charged us, that we have no grounds, that we could have no grounds, now when sufficient Grounds are offered to them▪ two of them one after another should pass by them in deep silence. And this Dispatcher being called upon for an answer, unless he would have the cause sentenced against him upon a Nihil dicit; with more ha●● then good speed, gives us an answer and no Answer, like the Title of an empty Apothecary's Box. If there be any Monster, the Reader may look for it on that side, not on our side. He may promise the View of a strange Monster in his Antepasts and Postpasts, and blow his Trumpet to get pence a piece to see it (as he phraseth it): but if the Readers expect till he show them any such rare sight, they may wait until Dooms day, and all the remedy he offers them is, to say he hath abused them, as he doth often.  
Now room for his Case or his two Principles of Unity, which are evermore called in to help at a dead lift. But his case, is not the true case, and his Rules are leaden Rules, they might be straight at the beginning, but they have bended them according to their self Interest. Both his case and his Principles have been sufficiently discussed and fully cleared: so that I will not offend the Reader with his sleight dish of Coleworts sodden over and over again.  
He is angry, that I make our separation to be rather from the Court of Rome, then from the Church of Rome, and styleth it perfect Impudence. So my Assertion be evidently true, I weigh not his groundless Calumnies. Let any man look upon our Grievances, and the Grounds of our Reformation, 1. the intolerable extortion of the Roman Court, 2. the unjust Usurpations of the Roman Court, 3. the malignant influence of the Roman Court upon the body politic, 4. the like malignant influence of the Roman Court upon the body Ecclesiastic, 5. and lastly the Violation of ancient Liberties and Exemtions by the Roman Court; and he can not doubt from whence we made our Separation. All our sufferings were from the Roman Court; then why should we seek for ease but where our Shoe did wring us? And as our Grievances, so our Reformation was only of the Abuses of the Roman Court; Their bestowing of prelacies and dignities in England to the prejudice of the right patrons; Their Convocating Synods in England without the King's leave; Their prohibiting English Prelates to make their old Fe●dall Oaths to the King, and obliging them to take new Oaths of Fidelity to the Pope; Their imposing and receiving Tenths and First fruits, and other arbitrary Pensions upon the English Clergy; And lastly their usurping a Legislative judiciary and Dispensative Power in the exterior Court by Political Coaction. These are all the Branches of Papal power which we have rejected. This Reformation, is all the Separation that we have made in point of Discipline. And for Doctrine, we have no Difference with them about the old Essentials of Christian Religion: And their new Essentials which they have patched to the Creed, are but their erroneous or at the best probable Opinions, no Articles of Faith.  
He is still bragging of his Demonstrations, (yet they are but blind Enthymematicall Paralogismes, wherein he maketh sure to set his best leg foremost, and to conceal the lameness of his Discourse as much as he can from the eyes of the Reader) and still calling upon us for rigorous Demonstration. I wish we knew whether he understand what rigorous Demonstration is in Logic, for no other Demonstration is rigorous, but that which proceedeth according to the strict Rules of Logic, either a priore or a posteriore, from the cause or the effect: And this Cause in Difference between us (whether those Branches of power which the Pope claimeth and we have rejected, be the Legacies of Christ or Papal Usurpations) is not capable of such rigorous Demonstration, but dependeth upon Testimony, which Logicians call an inartificial way of arguing. But if by rigorous Demonstration, he understand convincing proofs, those grounds which I offer in this Section do contain a rigorous Demonstration. That Discipline which is brimful of intolerable Rapine, and Extortion, and Simony, and Sacrilege; which robbeth Kings, and Subjects Ecclesiastical and Secular, of their just rights; which was introduced into the Church of England, eleven hundred years after Christ; which hath a Malignant Influence upon the Body Politic; which is Destructive to the right ends of Ecclesiastical Discipline; which in stead of securing men in peace doth thrust them into Manifest and manifold Dangers, both of soul and body; which is contrary to General Counsels, and the ancient Liberties of particular Churches: qua talis, as it is such, is no Legacy of Christ, but aught to be purged and reform from all such abuses and Usurpations: But such is that Papal Discipline, which the Bishop of Rome exercised in England before the Reformation, and less than which they will not go; and such are all those Branches of Papal power which we have cast out.  
The truth of this Assertion I have made manifest in my Vindication c. 6, and this is the place of a further examination of it, if he did discharge the part of a fair solid Disputant; to leave his windy Invectives, which signify nothing to the cause, but to his own shame, and to proceed closely and ingenuously to the investigation of truth without prejudice or partiality. But on the Contrary, he minceth my grounds, and concealeth them, and skippeth over whatsoever disliketh him, and choppeth them and changes them, and confoundeth them, that I cannot know mine own Conceptions again as he hath dressed them, and disordered them, and mutilated them. I proposed five distinct Grounds of our Reformation, and casting out so many Branches as we did of Papal power; if he dealt like a just Adversary, he should pursue my Method step by step: but he reduceth my five grounds into three, that between two Methods he may conceal and smother whatsoever he hath no disposition to answer, as he dealeth with many points of weight and moment, and particularly with all those Testimonies and instances I bring to prove the intolerable extortions, and manifold Usurpations, and malignant Influence of the Roman Court upon the Body Politic and Ecclesiastic, being much the greater part of my discourse. But I do not altogether blame him, for they are so foul, that a man can find small credit or contentment in defending them. For once rather then lose his Company, I will pursue his Method. Let us give him the hearing.  
He reduceth my five grounds to three, first such as entrench upon Eternity and Conscience. May not any Heretic object that the Church imposed new Articles of faith etc. or complain of new Creeds, when she addeth to her public Professions some points of Faith held formerly? Might not he Complain of peril of Idolatry, as your Brother Puritan did for Surplesses & c? Might not he pretend that all Heretics and Schismatics were good Christians, and that the Church was Tyrannical in holding them for excommunicate? Might he not shuffle together Faith with Opinion, and falsely allege as you do here, you were forced to approve the Pope's Rebellion against General Counsels, and take Oaths to maintain Papal Usurpations? This is all the Answer I get of this brave Disputant, as if the unjust complaints of the Puritans did satisfy the just exceptions of the Protestants. It is probable enough, that he himself was one of our Brother Puritan in those days: otherwise he could not well have talked so wildly of peril of Idolatry from Surplesses. His discourse is so sleight and impertinent, that I will not vouchsafe any answer but leave it to the Reader to compare my Vindication and Reply with his Rejoinder. That they have added new Essentials to Faith, is fully evinced against them in this Treatise Sect. 1. cap. 11. What our judgement is concerning their Idolatry, he shall find exactly set down in my answer to Militier Pa. 133. As for the Oaths of Fidelity which every Bishop must make to the Pope, he may satisfy himself Sect. 1. Cap. 5. and see the From of it. cap, 7. Or if he Desire to see a later form, let him take this. I Henry Archbishop of Canterbury will be faithful and Obedient to St. Peter from this hour as formerly, 
Antiq. Eccles. Brit. vita 66.  and to the holy Apostolic Church of Rome, and to my Lord Pope Alexander the sixth and his Successors. I will give no counsel nor consent nor act any thing towards the loss of their lives, or members, or liberty. I will discover their Counsels to no man to their prejudice, which they have communicated to me by themselves or their Messengers. I will help them to retain and defend the Roman Papacy, and the Royalties of St. Peter (saving my Order) against all men. I will entertain the Pope's Legates honourably going and coming, and help them in their necessities. I will visit the Papal Court every year, if it be on this side the Alps, and every two years if it beyond the Alps, unless the Pope dispense with me, So help me God and the Holy Gospel. What fidelity can a King expect from a Subject who hath taken this Oath, if the Pope please to attempt any thing against him? If the Pope's Superiority above a General Council, be but held as an indifferent Opinion in their Church, and not a point of Faith, as he intimateth: yet it is such an Opinion as he dare not contradict, it is fere communis, it is almost the Common Opinion of all Roman Catholics, if Bellarmine say true, and fere de fide, almost a point of Faith, upon which modern Popes and Counsels are accorded. It is determined expressly in their last General Council of Lateran, 
Sess. 11.  that the Bishop of Rome alone hath Authority over all Counsels.  
Were these all the grounds he could find which entrench upon Eternity and Conscience? He might have found more, that by means of Papal abuses there described, hospitality was not kept, the poor not sustained, the word not preached, 
Math. Paris. an. 1245.  churches not adorned, the Cure of souls neglected, divine Offices not performed, Churches ruined. He might have found Oaths, Customs, writings, grants, statutes, rights, privileges, to have been not only weakened but exinanited, by the Pope's infamous Messenger called Non obstance. And all this attested by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and the whole Commonwealth of England. But it is no matter whether he take notice of it or not, whilst he answereth nothing.  
He faith my second sort of Grounds, are those which relate to Temporal inconveniences and injuries to the State, by reason of the Pope's pretended encroachments, which I huddle together in big Terms. Do I huddle them together? Nay I handled them distinctly under three heads or notions. First the intolerable Oppressions and Extortions of the Court of Rome in points of Fact, Secondly their gross and grievous usurpations in point of Right, Thirdly the malignant influence of foreign discipline in point of Policy. It is he that huddles them together, because they are so foul and so evident, that he dare not take a view of them singly, much less repeat them: and so they might be buried in Oblivion for him, unless the Reader be pleased to take a review of them. I shall not willingly add a word more, either to the Extortions or Malignant Influence, because I judge in Charity, that all good men do wish them amended as well as I: And for the Usurpations, being matter of perpetual right, I hope I have cleared them sufficiently in this Treatise throughout the first Section:  
But what is his answer to all this? That it is disputable between Canon and Civil Lawyers, whether many of these were abuses or just rights; of which kind of Controversy he neither thinks me nor himself competent judges. Adding, that these Questions do not concern our present quarrel. How? not concern our Quarrel? They are all the Quarrel we have: and not a Primacy of Order, or any power purely spiritual in the Court of Conscience. If he have nothing to do with these, why doth he meddle to no purpose? whatsoever power was given by Christ, or is recorded in Scripture, is expressly excepted out of our Law. And once more Reader observe and wonder, that these men who called upon us often for the Grounds of our Separation, must be called on as often for a fair answer. He promised to show the Readers a Monster in this Section for pence a piece: It seemeth by his boggling, he seeth something that he is afraid to meddle with. I doubt he will prove a true Prophet of himself, that all the Readers satisfaction for their money will be, to tell them that he hath abused them.  
But it may be he is better at his sword then at his Buckler, at opposing in Generals, then defending himself from Particulars. Although he hath not given us one particular answer, to the truth or falsehood of the Crimes and inconveniences objected: yet he giveth in seven general Exceptions, but it is with as much haste as the dog by Nilus, which runs and drinks. First he saith, those inconveniences which I mention, if they had been true, are abuses in the● Officer not faults in the Office, which ought not to be taken away for them. Intolerable extortions and gross Usurpations, are no more with him than inconveniences. This Objection was answered by me before it was moved by him, if he had not thought fit to smother it; where I distinguish between the personal faults of Popes, and faulty principles or Laws, and show how far the one and the other do warrant a Separation. The former only from the faulty person, to preserve ourselves from participating with him in his Crimes: 
wind. cap. 6. pa. 128  The latter from the faulty Office, so far as it is faulty, until it be reform. Neither have we taken away any Office, but only abuses and Usurpations.  
Secondly he excepreth, that some of these pretended abuses are only my own Deductions, which I show not evidently ou● of the Science of Politics, but out of two or three matters of Fact. I answer, that experience is the Politician's best Schoolmaster: and that every man findeth where his own Shoe wringeth him, much better by wearing it himself, then by hearing others discourse of it. But I thank him for his Memento, and the next time I have occasion to make use of it, I shall demonstrate to him out of the Science of Politics that Foreign jurisdiction is useless and chargeable to the Subject; Dangerous and destructive to the King and Commonwealth; a Rack and Gibbet to the Conscience, by subjecting it to two Supremes who may possibly clash one with another; and altogether opposite to the Ecclesiastical Policy of the Primitive times, which conformed the bounds of Ecclesiastical jurisdiction to the Civil.  
Thirdly he pleadeth, that I do not prove that some of these pretended abuses were not just rights, but only show that such and such things were done, and that either party had learned Lawyers for them, and that sometimes the Kings renounced their pretences, as in point of Investitures. I answer, that the Opposition of King and Kingdom to any branch of Papal power, showeth evidently that they did not believe, that the Pope had any right to it, divine or humane, and clearly destroyeth his Foundation of immediate Tradition. How should they leave that to their Children, as a Legacy of Christ or his Apostles, which they themselves rejected? Our Kings never renounced their right of Investitures, only they consented, that they should not give Investitures in their own persons, but by a Bishop, still retaining both the right of Patronage and their feudal Oaths.  
Fourthly, he saith that these temporal Laws which I cite, concluder not evidently a right; and reason gives more particular respect to Ecclesiastical laws then to temporal. I answer, though such Laws do not always prove a right; Yet they always prove the common consent of the Kingdom, what they esteem to be right; they always disprove the Pope's Prescription. But he is wholly mistaken, many of those Laws which I cited were Ecclesiastical Laws: And the Pope's decretals which he intimateth for Laws, are no Laws, nor ever were held for Laws in England, without the reception of the Church and Kingdom. Reason gives more respect to the Sanctions of Bishops then of Kings, in cases purely spiritual: but more respect to the Laws of Kings then of Bishops, in the external Regiment of the Church within their own dominions.  
Fifthly he chargeth me for saying, that the Pope usurped most injustly all right Civil, Ecclesiastical, Sacred, Profane, of all Orders of men, Kings, Nobles, Bishops, etc. Which he calleth a loud ●outhed Calumny. By his favour, he doth me wrong and himself more with his foul Language, when he is not provoked at all. I said not [all right] in the abstract, but [all rights] in the concrete. Hath he forgotten that which every boy in the University knoweth, to distinguish betwixt singula generum and genera singulorum, Some of all sorts, and all without exception. My words▪ only signify some rights of all sorts; as is evident by the words following, Civil, Ecclesiastical, sacred, profane, of all Orders of men, Kings, Nobles, Bishops etc. which is an ordinary and proper expression, and cannot possibly be extended to all rights without exception.  
Sixthly, he urgeth that grant all these abuses had been true, was there no other remedy but division? Had not the Secular Governors the sword in their hand? Did it not lie in their power to choose whether they would admit things destructive to their rights? I answer, that it doth not always rest in the power of the Civil Magistrate, to do that which is best in itself, especially in seditious times, when the Multitude (as a good Author saith) do more readily obey their Priests then their Kings. But they must move their Rudder according to the Various Face of the Sky, and await for a fitter opportunity; As our Kings did, which fell o●t at the Reformation, when they followed his Counsel in good earnest, and with the Civil sword did lop away all Papal Usurpations and abuses; Other Division than this, to divide between the rotte● and the sound, we made none. The great division which followed our Reformation, was made by themselves, and their Censures. Our Articles do testify to all the world, that we have made no division from any Church, but only from Errors and Abuses.  
Seventhly, he pleadeth that in case these temporal inconveniences had not been otherwise remediable, ye● Ecclesiastical Communion ought not to be broken for temporal Concernments. To prove this Conclusion he bringeth six reasons, some pertinent, some impertinent and very improper, but he might have saved his labour. For if he understand his Conclusion in that sense, wherein he ought to understand it, and wherein I hope he doth understand it, of deserting the Communion of the Catholic Church, or of any member of the Catholic Church qua ●ale as it is a Member, for mere temporal respects, Concedo omnia, I grant the conclusion: but if by breaking Ecclesiastical Communion, he understand deserting the Communion of a particular Church, as it is erroneous and wherein it is erroneous, his Conclusion is not pertinent to his purpose, nor his six proofs pertinent to his conclusion. But he might remember, first that our Grounds by his own Confession do not all relate to temporal inconveniences, but some of them to Eternity and Conscience, and that they ought to be considered conjointly. Secondly, that we do not make these temporal Inconveniences to be irremediable, we ourselves have found out a Remedy: and it is the same which he himself adviseth in this place, to thrust out all entroachments and Usurpations with the civil sword. If they will grow Angry upon this, and break Ecclesiastical Communion themselves, it is their Act, not ours, who have acted nothing, who have declared nothing against any right of the Bishop of Rome divine or humane, but only against his encroachments and Usurpations, and particularly against his Coactive powe● in the Exterior Court, within the English Dominions. They might take us to be not only very tame Creatures, but very stupid Creatures, first to suffer them to entrench and encroach and usurp upon us daily, and then to be able to persuade us to Isachars' condition, to undergo our burden with Patience like Asses, because we may not break Ecclesiastical Communion for temporal concernments. We have done nothing but what we have good warrant for from the Laws of God and nature; let them suffer for it, who either separate from others without just cause, or give others just cause to separate from them.  
In the next place followeth a large panegyrical Oration i● the praise of Unity, of the Benefit and Necessity of it, mixed with an Invective against us for breaking both the Bonds of Unity. The former of those considerations is altogether superfluous, To praise Unity which no man did ever dispraise, but to his own perpetual Disgrace. The latter is a mere Tautology or repetition of what he hath said before, which I will not trouble the Reader withal, but only where I find some new weight added. 
pag. 572,  He saith we acknowledge the Church of Rome to be a true Church. Right, Metaphysically a true Church, which hath the true essence and being of a Church, but not Morally true or free from Errors.  
He demands, what is the certain Method to know the true sense of Scripture? If he please to take so much pains to View my answer to Militier, he may find both whom we hold to be fit Expositors of Scripture, and what is the right manner of expounding Scripture; If he have any thing to say against it, he shall have a fair hearing. He telleth us, that our best Champions Chillingworth and Falkland do very candidly confess, that we have no certainty of Faith but probability only. He citeth no place, and I do not hold it worthy of a search, whether they do confess it or not. It is honour enough for them to have been genuine Sons of the English Church, (I hope they were so), and men of rare parts, whereof no man can doubt: yet one of them was a Lay man, it may be neither of them so deeply radicated in the right Faith of the English Church, as many others. But our chiefest Champions are those who stick closest to the Holy Scriptures, interpreted according to the Analogy of Faith, and the Perpetual Tradition of the Universal Church: but for that Assertion which you father upon them, that we have no certainty of Faith but probability only; We detest it. And when you, or any other is pleased to make trial, You will find that we have as great assurance altogether for our faith, as yourselves have for your old Articles of faith, and much more than you have for your new Articles,  
He accuseth us for joining in Communion with Greeks Lutherans Huguenots, 
p. 373.  perhaps Socinians Presbyterians Adamites Quakers etc. And after he addeth Roman Catholics. Are not Huguenots Presbyterians in his Sense? If they be, why doth he disjoin them? I know no reason why we should not admit Greeks and Lutherans to our Communion, and (if he had added them) Armenians Abyssines Muscovites, and all those who do profess the Apostolical Creed, as it is expounded by the first four General Counsels under the Primitive Discipline: and the Roman Catholics also, if they did not make their Errors to be a Condition of their Communion. As for Adamites and Quakers we know not what they are, and for Socinians we hold them worse than Arrians. The Arrians made Christ to be a Secondary God, erat quando non erat: but the Socinians make him to be a mere creature. And for Presbyterians what my judgement is, he may find fully set down in my reply to the Bishop of Chalcedons Epistle.  
But saith he, every one of these hath a different head of the Church, The English head is the King, The Roman Catholic head is the Pope, The Grecian head is the Patriarch, The Presbyterian head is the Presbytery or Synod, and the Lutheran head is the Parish Minister. First for the Lutherans he doth them egregious wrong. Throughout the Kingdoms of Denwark and Sweden they have their Bishops, name and thing, and throughout Germany they have their Superintendents. And to the rest I answer him, that there are several Heads of the Church, Christ alone is the Spiritual head, the Sovereign Prince the Political head, the Ecclesiastical head is a General Council, and under that each Patriarch in his Patriarchate, and among the Patriarches the Bishop of Rome by a Priority of Order. We who maintain the King to be the Political head of the English Church, do not deny the spiritual Headship of Christ, nor the supreme power of the Representative Church that is a General Council or Synod, nor the Executive headship of each Patriarch in his Patriarchate, nor the Bishop of Rome's headship of Order among them: and thus this great Objection is vanished. By this he may see that we have introduced no new Form of Ecclesiastical Government into the Church of England, but preserved to every one his due right if he will accept of it: and that we have the same Dependence upon our Ecclesiastical Superiors, which we had evermore from the Primitive times.  
He chargeth us, that we give no certain Rule to know which is a General Council, which not, or who are to be called to a General Council. There is no need why we should give any new Rules, who are ready to observe the old Rules of the Primitive Church. General Summons to all the Patriarches, for them and their Clergy; General Admittance of all Persons capable, to discuss freely, and to define freely, according to their distinct Capacities; and lastly the presence of the five Protopatriarches and their Clergy, either in their persons or by their suffrages, or in case of Necessity the greater part of them, do make a General Council. Whilst we set this rule before us as our pattern, and swerve not from it but only in case of invincible Necessity, we may well hope that God who looketh upon his poor Servants with all their Prejudices, and expecteth no more of them then he hath enabled them to perform, who hath promised that where two or three are gathered together in his name, there will he be in the midst of them: Will vouchsafe to give his assistence and his Blessing to such a Council, which is as General as may be, although perhaps it be not so exactly General as hath been, or might have been now, if the Christian Empire had flourished still as it did anciently. In sum, I shall be ever ready to acquiesce in the Determinaation of a Council so General as is possible to be had: so it may be equal, not having more judges of one Country than all the rest of the Christian world, as it was in the Council of Trent, but regulated by the equal votes of Christian Nations, as it was in the Counsels of Constance and Basile: and so as those Nations which cannot in probability be personally present, may be admitted to send their Votes and Suffrages as they did of old: and lastly so it may be free, called in a free place whither all parties may have secure access, and Liberty to propose freely and define freely, according to the Votes of the Fathers, without being stinted or kerbed or overruled by the Holy Ghost sent in a Curriers Budget.  
And for the last part of his exception that Heretics should not be admitted, I for my part should readily consent; provided that none be reputed Heretics, but such as true General Counsels have evidently declared to be Heretics, or such as will not pronounce an Anathema against all old Heresies, which have been condemned for Heresies by undoubted General Counsels. But to imagine that all those should be reputed Heretics, who have been condemned of Heresy or Schism by the Roman Court for their own interest, that is four parts of five of the Christian world, is silly and senseless, and argueth nothing but their fear to come to a fair impartial Trial.  
And this is a full answer to that which he allegeth out of Doctor Hammond, that General Counsels are now morally impossible to be had, the Christian world being under so many Empires and Divided into so many Communions. It is not credible that the Turk will send his Subjects, that is four of the Protopatriarches with their Clergy to a General Council, or allow them to meet openly with the rest of Christendom in a General Council, it being so much against this own Interest: but yet this is no impediment why the Patriarches, might not deliver the Sense and Suffrages of their Churches by Letters or by Messengers; and this is enough to make a Council General. In the First Council of Nice, there were only five Clergymen present out of the Western Churches; In the Great Council of Chalcedon not so many; In the Counsels of Constantinople and Ephesus none at all. And yet have these four Counsels evermore been esteemed truly General, because the Western Church did declare their consent and concurrence. Then as there have been General Oriental Counsels, without the personal presence of a Western Bishop: so there may be an Occidental Council, without the personal presence of one Eastern Bishop, by the sole Communication of their sense and their Faith. Neither is such Communication to be deemed impossible, considering what correspondence, the Muscovian Church did hold long with the Patriarch of Constantinople, and the Abyssine hath long held, and doth still hold with the Patriarch of Alexandria.  
It is confessed that there are too many different Communions in Europe, it may be some more than there is any great cause for, and perhaps different Opinions where there is but one Communion, as difficult to be reconciled as different Communions. But many of these Mushroom Sects, are like those inorganical Creatures bred upon the Banks of Nilus, which perished quickly after they were bred, for want of fit Organs. The more considerable parties, and the more capable of reason are not so many; if these could be brought to acquiesce in the determination of a free General Council, they would tow the other like lesser Boats after them with ease.  
No man will say that the Unity of the Church in point of Government, doth consist only in their actual subordination to General Counsels. General Counsels are extraordinary Remedies, proper for curing or composing new differences of great Concernment in Faith or discipline. That being done, General Counsels may prove of more Danger than use. No healthful man delighteth in a continual course of Physic. But Unity consisteth also and Ordinarily in Conformity and submission to that discipline which General Counsels have recommended to us, either as the Legacies of Christ and his Apostles, or as Ecclesiastical Policies instituted by them, with the Concurrence or Confirmation of Christian Sovereigns, for the public good of the Catholic Church.  
He chargeth us, that we have so form God's Church, that there is no means left to asssemble a General Council, having renounced his Authority whose proper Office it was to call a General Council. His errors seldom come single, but commonly by Clusters or at least by pairs. What height of Confidence is it to affirm, that it is the proper Office of the Pope to call General all Counsels, when all ingenuous men do acknowledge that all the First General Counsels, were Ab Imperatoribus Indicta, Called by Emperors? To which the Pope's Friends add, that it was by the Advise and with the Consent of the Pope. And Bellarmine gives divers reasons why it could not be otherwise, First, because there was a Law, 
De Concil. lib. 1. cap. 14.  which did forbid frequent Assemblies for fear of Sedition. Secondly because no reason doth permit that such an Assembly should be made in an Imperial City, without the leave of the Lord of the place. Thirdly because General Counsels were made then, at the Public Charge. He might have added, that Counsels did receive their Protection from Emperors, and they who sit in Counsels were the Subjects of Emperors.  
In the second place he erreth in this also, that we have taken away the means of assembling General Counsels. We have taken away no power from the Pope of convocating any Synods, except only Synods of the King of England's Subjects, within his own dominions, without his leave; which Bellarmine himself acknowledgeth to be agreeable to reason. If the Pope have any right, either to convocate General Counsels himself, or to represent to Christian Sovereign's the fit seasons for Convocation of them, either in respect of his Beginning of Unity, or of his Protopatriarchate, we do not envy it to him, since there may be a good use of it in respect of the division of the Empire, so good caution be observed. Bellarmine confesseth that that power which we acknowledge, that is, that though the Pope be no Ecclesiastical Monarch, but only chief of the Principal Patriarches, yet the right to convocate General Counsels should pertain unto him. 
De council. li, 1. c. 12.  But it may be, this is more than Mr. Serjeant did know.  
My last Ground, was the Exemtion of the Britannic Churches from foreign jurisdiction, by the General Council of Ephesus. As to the Exemtion of the Britannic Churches, he referreth himself to what he had said formerly, and so do I. To the Authority of the Council of Ephesus he answereth, that howsoever Cyprus and some others are exempted from a Neighbouring Superior, falsely pretending a jurisdiction over them, yet I shall never show a Syllable in the Council of Ephesus, exemting from the Pope's jurisdiction as head of the Church. Not directly, a man may safely swear it, for the Council never suspected it, the world never dreamt of it, the Popes themselves never pretended to any such headship of Power, and Universal jurisdiction over the whole Church, in those days. All that the Primitive Popes claimed by divine right, was a Primacy of Order or Beginning of Unity, due to the Chair of St. Peter: all that they claimed by humane right were some Privileges, partly gained by Custom or Prescription, and partly granted by the Fathers to to the See of Rome, because it was the Imperial City. But there is enough in this very Canon collaterally to overthrow all the Usurpations of the Roman Court. There is no need that Britain should be named particularly, where all the Provinces without exception are comprehended, Let the same be observed in other Dioceses and in all Provinces. There is no need that the Bishop of Rome should be expressed, where all the Bishops are prohibited, That no Bishop occupy another Province, which formerly and from the beginning was not under the power of him or his Predecessors. If the Fathers were so tender of pride creeping into the Church in those days, or of the danger to lose their Christian Liberty in the case of the Bishop of Antioch, who pretended neither to divine right nor Universal jurisdiction: what would they have said or done in the present case of the Bishop of Rome, who challengeth not only patriarchal but Sovereign jurisdiction, not over Cyprus only but over the whole world, not from Custom or Canons but from the institution of Christ? If Master Sergeant be in the right then the Bishop of Antioch was quite out, to sue for the jurisdiction of Cyprus which belonged more to the Bishops of Rome then to him. Then the Bishops of Cyprus were quite o●t, to challenge the Ordination of themselves, and jurisdiction over one another, as a proper right belonging to themselves, which they hold only by Courtesy and favour from the Bishop of Rome. Then the holy Synod was quite out, to Determine so positively, that not only Cyprus, but every Province should enjoy its rights and Customs inviolated, which it had from the beginning, without a Salvo or saving the right of the Bishop of Rome, or a restriction, so long as he pleaseth to permit them; and to do it in such Imperial Terms, It hath pleased the holy Synod, or such is our pleasure. Lastly the Pope himself was out, to ratify the Privileges and exemptions of the Cyprian Bishops, not only from the Patriarch of Antioch, but from himself also, and to suffer his divine right to be trampled under foot, by Customs and Canons, which are of no force without him. But this is the least part of the passages in the four First General Counsels, which are repugnant to the Pope's pretensions of a General Monarchy. The Eastern Churches do still adhere firmly to the Primitive Discipline, and for this cause the Pope hath thought fit to excommunicate them. Si violandum jus est, regnandi causâ violandum est.  
Against all our Grounds, the most intolerable extortions that ever were heard of, most grievous Usurpations, malignant Influence both upon the State Politic and Ecclesiastic, and undoubted Privileges, he produceth nothing but immediate Tradition: and you must be content to take his bare word for it, for he is altogether unfurnished of proofs. Some men by telling strange Stories over and over, do come at last to believe them. It may be, he believeth there was a Tradition, for those Branches of Papal power, which we cast out: but we deny it altogether, and require him to prove first that there was such a Tradition in England, next that a particular Tradition is a sufficient proof of divine Institution.  
We admit readily, that the Unity of the Church is of great importance, and the breaking of it an heinous Crime, and that no abuses imaginable are sufficient excuse for a total desertion of a just power. Thus far in the Thesis we agree, but in the Hypothesis we differ, That which is a sufficient ground for a reformation, is not a sufficient Ground for an extirpation. So many, so grievous, so unconscionable extortions, and Usurpations, and malignant influences, as we complain of and prove, are without all peradventure a sufficient ground of Reformation, which is all our Ancestors did, or we defend; though not a sufficient cause of the extirpation of any just Authority. Our Grounds are sufficient for a Reformation of abuses and encroachments, which we acknowledge, and which is all we did at the Reformation: but for the abolition of any just power, it is his fond Imagination, we disclaim it altogether. We have cast out all Papal Coactive jurisdiction in the Exterior Court, as being Political not Spiritual: but for any Papal jurisdiction either purely spiritual or justly founded, we have not meddled with it; Those things which we have cast out, are only abuses and Usurpations. So there is no need of that Consideration which he proposeth, whether the abuses were otherwise remediable, or not: for our Reformation is that very Remedy which he himself hath prescribed, to hold out encroachments with the point of the sword, without any meddling with just right. Other division than this (which he himself hath allowed) we believe our Ancestors intended none, we hold none, and so are accountable for none.  
The main Question is whether the Britannic Churches were de facto subject to Rome or not. I have demonstrated the contrary already, that they were not, and had always their Ordinations at home. But his Conclusion which he puts upon me, that true complaints against Governors, whether otherwise remediable or no, are sufficient reasons to abolish that very Government, is a vain assertion of his own, no Conclusion of mine.  
He starteth a Question here little to his own Credit, whether he that maintaineth the Negative, or he that maintaineth the Affirmative aught to prove. He saith (according to his old Pueriles) that a Negative may be proved in Logic. No man doubteth of it or denieth it, Quis e●im potest negare? I said on the Contrary, that in this case which cometh here in difference between us▪ according to the strict rules of Law▪ the burden to prove, resteth only on his side who affirmeth. As the Question is here between us, whether we had other Remedies, then to make such a Reformation as we did. We say, No. They say, Yea. It is possible to ●rove there might be other Remedies, ●ut it is impossible to prove there were no ●ther Remedies. Galen or Hypocrates himself would not have undertaken such a Task, to prove that there were no other Remedies for a disease, then that which they used. It is not for want of Logical Forms, that Negatives are not to be proved ●n matter of Fact, but for want of sufficient Mediums. He saith he is no Bowler, and so ●nexpert as not to understand what is the soaling of a Bowl; It may be it is true, but if I should put him to prove this Negative, it is impossible. But so far as a Negative of that nature is capable of proof, I did prove it, by our Addresses to Popes and Counsels, and long expectation in vain, that we had no other Remedy then that which we used, to thrust out their Usurpations by the power of the sword, which course he himself adviseth, and we practised. The division is not made by them who thrust out Usurpations, but by them who brought them in and defend them.  
I said, that not only our Ancestors but all Catholic Countries did maintain their own privileges inviolated, and make themselves the last judges of their Grievances, from the Court of Rome. Hence he concludeth with open Mouth, therefore there were other Remedies, there needed no Division. Alas poor man, how he troubleth himself about nothing! They and we used the very same Remedies, the same that he adviseth in this place. The Pope would not ease them upon many addresses made. What then? had not the King the Sword in his own hands? 
p. 571.  Did it not lie in his power to right himself as he listed? and to admit those pretended encroachments only so far as he thought just and fitting? Yes, the King had the sword in his hands, and did right himself, and cast out those Papal Usurpatious so far as he found Just: and now when we have followed your own advice, you call us Schismatics and Dividers. Sr. we are no Dividers, but we have done our Duties, and if we prove those things which we cast out to be Usurpations (as we have done), you are the Schismatics by your own Confession.  
He pleadeth, If Papal Authority be of Christ's Institution, than no just cause can possibly be given for its Abolishment. Right: But those Branches of Papal power which we have cast out, are neither of Christ's Institution nor of Man's Institution, but mere Usurpations. Neither do we seek to abolish Papal Authority, but to reform it from Accidental Abuses, and reduce it to its first Institution. The best Institutions Divine or Humane, may sometimes need such Reformation. Here is nothing like proof, but his World of Witnesses, and his immemorial Tradition, presumed not proved.  
To show that no Nation suffered so much as England under the Tyranny of the Roman Court, he saith I produce nothing, but the pleasant saying of a certain Pope. Well, would he have a better witness against the Pope, than the Pope himself? Habemus confitentem reum, He was pleasant indeed, but Ridentem dicere verum Quid vetat?  
What hindereth that a man may net tell the truth laughing? He asketh whether those Testimonies which I produce, be Demonstrative or rigorous Evidences? I think he would have me like the unskilful Painter, to write over the Heads of my Arguments, This is a Demonstration. It would become him better to refute them, and show that they are not Demonstrative, then to trifle away the time with such frivolous Questions.  
I showed, that [England is not alone in the Separation, so long as all the Eastern, Southern, Northern, and so great a part of the Western Church, have separated themselves from the Court of Rome, and are separated by them from the Church of Rome as well as we]. In answer to this, he bids me show that those I call Christians, have any infallible or certain Rule of Faith etc. This is first to hang men up, and then to examine their cause; first to excommunicate four parts of five of the Christian world for their own Interests, because they will not submit their necks to the Roman Yoke, and embrace their upstart Usurpations, with as much Devotion as the genuine Legacies of Christ and his Apostles. It behoved the Court of Rome to have weighed the case more maturely, before they gave such a temerarious sentence, against the much greater part of Christendom, in so weighty a cause. But for their rule of Faith, they have a more certain and Authentic Rule than he himself, by as much as the Apostles Creed is a more Authentic rule of Faith, than Pius the fourth's Creed, and the Holy Scriptures a more infallible ground, then particular supposititious Tradition, which wanteth both Perpetuity and Universality.  
I said that [we desired to live in the peaceable, Communion of the Catholic Church, as well as our Ancestors, as far as the Roman Court will give us leave]. He answereth, that he knoweth very well we would be glad that the Church of Rome would own us for hers &c, That lack Straw or Wat Tiler after they had rebelled, had no mind to be hanged, That it is no Charity or Courtesy in us, but a request of an unreasonable favour from them, to admit us into their Communion, and would be most absurd in Government, etc. Whether they hold us for theirs or not, is not much material; if they did, it were the better for themselves; if they do not, it is not the worse for us: so as Christ own us for his, it skilleth not much whether they say, come ye blessed, or go ye cursed; whether we be the wheat or Chaff, their tongues must not winnow us. Although he snuff at our desire of Union: yet God Almighty sets a greater value upon it. He is not out of the Church who is within it in the desires of his heart, and implicitly in the preparation of his mind. Observe Reader who are the procreative and conserving Causes of this Schism. They frighted us from them with new Articles and Usurpations, they thrust us from them with new Censures and Excommunications; and if we had a mind to return, they tell us it were absurd in Government to readmit us. But my chiefest wonder is, that he who was the other day, by his own vote, an Ar●h rebel, should talk so suddenly of hanging. Sudden Changes are always dangerous, and for the most part personated.  
He asketh, whether our Ancestors did renounce the Pope's Authority as Head of the Church? If he mean a Head of Order, they did not, no more do we: if he mean a Head of Sovereign power, they did, and so do we. What I granted once I grant always, it is for Turncoats to take their swings. I write semper idem, of the same religion wherein I was baptised: can he do the same? But he urgeth, that I make it the top of my Climax, that our Ancestors threatened to make a wall of Separation, between the Court of Rome and them, which showeth that they did it not: but it is evident, that we have done what they only threatened to do, and plead for our excuses, that we have more experience than our Ancestors had. I made it the top of my Climax indeed; honest men's words are as good as deeds. But doth he think that our Ancestors did only make counterfeit Grimaces, and threaten that which they could not Lawfully have performed? Absit: The Laws and the threatening are easily reconciled. Our Ancestors made very severe Laws against the Usurpations of the Court of Rome, as I have showed in particular throughout: but they did not execute them so rigorously, but connived at many innocent or not pernicious encroachments, in hope the Court of Rome and their Emissaries, would have kept themselves within some tolerable bounds of moderation. But they found by experience, and we by much longer and surer experience, that all our Hopes were vain, that the Avarice of the Roman Court was not to be satiated or to be stinted, that if we give them leave to thrust in their head they would quickly draw in their body after. And therefore our Ancestors finding this true in a great part, did threaten them to make a wall of Separation, that is, to execute their Laws rigorously, to use no more indulgence or connivance, to take away their Coactive power in the Exterior Court altogether, which the Laws have taken away before sufficiently. And we being confirmed by much longer and surer experience, have accomplished what they threatened. So this threatened Wall of Separation is no new Law, b●t a new Mandate to execute the old Laws: and our experience and our Ancestors materially is the same, but ours is more grounded and more sure; their separation and ours was the same to point of Law, but not of Execution. And the reason why our Ancestors remedies were not Sovereign or sufficient enough, was not want of virtue in the Remedy, but want of due application. Thus all Mr. Sergeants hopes are vanished, and his Contradictions tumbled to Dust▪ Great is Truth, and prevaileth.  
Yet he keepeth a great stir and bustling, 
Pag. 578.  about our Experience more than our Ancestors, and prayeth me in his scoffing manner, Good my Lord tell us what this new experiment was; and despairing as it were of success in his request, he addeth, Since you are resolved to make a secret of this rare Experiment. Now I have told him the secret, what good will it do him? as much as he may put in his eye and see never a jot the worse. I told him this rare secret before, in these words, 
Rep. pa. 37.  We have more experience than our Ancestors had, that their Remedies were not Sovereign or Sufficient enough, that if we give him leave to thrust in his head, he will never rest until he have drawn in his whole body after, whilst there are no Bonds to hold him but national Laws. But I was not bound both to write him a Lecture and find him eyes.  
Now Readers look to yourselves, out cometh the great Monster, that hath been so long threatened, (as he phraseth it scurrilously) in the likeness of a Drunken Dutchman, making Indentures with his Legs: so saith he my discourse staggers, now to the one, now to the other far distant side of the Contradiction. The Reader shall find that the fault is not in the innocent Dutchman, who goeth strait enough: but in the Prevaricators eyes, who seeth double. Either he did never know, or he hath forgotten what a Contradiction is. The Itch or humour of Contradicting hath so far possessed him, that he regardeth not what the Rules of Contradiction are. The first Contradiction is, That the Laws of our Ancestors were not remedies sufficient enough, yet I maintain stoutly that in the Separation no new Law was made, That is (as he collecteth) the same Laws were both sufficient and not sufficient. Is this the monstrous Contradiction which he promised to show the Readers for pence a piece. The same Laws were not sufficient in the days of our Ancestors, and yet the same Laws were sufficient in the Days of Henry the eighth● hath no show of a Contradiction in it, nor of any the least opposition, which ought always to be made according to the Rules of Logic, at the same time. I will show him a hundred of these Contradictions, every day in the week for nothing. Mr. Sergeant was no Roman Catholic, Mr. Serjeant is a Roman Catholic, is just such another Contradiction: or the same Plaster was not sufficient to cure such a sore at one time, yet it was sufficient at another time when the Body was better disposed. All his Contradictions end in smoke and laughter.  
The second Contradiction is, that I said the Laws of other Countries were equivalent to those of England; but I acknowledge elsewhere that the Laws of other Countries were sufficient; and here I say that the Laws of E●gland were insufficient: So they were equivalent and inequivalent. Here is another Contradiction, like the former. The same Laws proved sufficient to France, yet proved insufficient to England. It is another rule in Logic, Opposition ought to have the same Subject and the same Predicate without ambiguity: but here the Predicate is divers, sufficient for France, not sufficient for England, and ambiguity more then enough. He might as well argue, The same Medicine will work upon a child, which will not work upon a Man: therefore the same Medicine is not equivalent to itself.  
The third Contradiction is, that I say All Catholic Countries did maintain their Privileges inviolate, by means which did not maintain them, or by Laws which were not sufficient to do it. Where did I say this? It is his Collection not my Assertion: but let it pass muster for once. Here is a Contradiction deserves a Bell and a Babble: Catholic Countries did maintain their Privileges inviolate by such means, at one time not at another, in one place not in another, in one degree not in another, in one respect not in another.  
The last mock Contradiction is, that I say The Laws which denied the Pope all Authority, and were actually in force, that is, actually left him none, were not sufficient Remedies against the abuses of that Authority, Which had quite taken them away. This is not finding of Contradictions, but making of them. Give him leave to use this [id est, that is] and he will make a hundred Contradictions in every page of the Bible; as here, actually in force, that is, which actually left the Pope no Authority, or which had quite taken his Authority away. If this [id est that is] be mine, than he may object the Contradiction to me, if it be not, than he may keep the Contradiction to himself, such as it is. He knoweth, and all the world know, that a law is said to be actually in force, whilst it is unrepealed; in this sense I did, and all men but himself do use that expression. And here he committeth a third gross fault against the Rule of Opposition, which ought to be ever 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in the same Respect. The Law taketh away abuses as a Rule: but the Magistrate by due execution, as an Artificer. The Law is sufficient, when it is sufficiently penned and promulged: but the effect followeth the due execution. The not observing of this obvious and easy truth, hath made us all this stir about Imaginary Contradictions, as I have showed in my answer to his last paragraph, which alone is a sufficient answer to all these pretended Contradictions: but whether it will be so actually in force to procure his assent, is more than I know; if it do not, it detracteth nothing frem the sufficiency of the answer. Go Mr. Serjeant, go, bring us less wind and more weight 
Saepius in libro memor atur Perseus uno.  
Quam levis in totâ Tharsus Amazonide.  In the last Paragraph is nothing but a Calumny against Henry the eight, which he is not able to prove: and if he were, it neither concerneth us nor the Question.   

SECT. VII.  
That the King and Church of England proceeded with due Moderation.  
THis Section doth not much concern either us or the merit of the cause. A Reformation might be just and necessary, although the Reformers did exceed the bounds of due Moderation; neither are we answerable for their excesses, further than we ourselves do maintain them. I pass by his pleasant Topick unsaluted, as being impertinent, and having nothing in it deserving the least stay of a serious Reader,  
I reckoned this as the first Branch of our moderation, that we deny not to other Churhes, the true being of Churches nor possibility of Salvation, nor separate from Churches, but from Accidental Errors. For all his scoffing, if their Church would use the like moderation, it would save the world a great deal of needless debate. Against that which I say, he objecteth thus, Now the matter of Fact hath evidenced undeniably, that they (the Protestants) separated from those points, which were the Principles of Unity both in Faith and Government. He hath brought his matter of Fact and his Principles of Unity so often upon the Stage already, and they have been so often clearly answered, that I will not insist upon such a threedbare subject, or trouble the Reader with an irksome repetition. We have seen how far his Principles of Unity, or his Fundamental of Fundamentals is true, and aught to be admitted: and in a right sense, we adhere much more firmly unto them, than the Church of Rome itself.  
He proceedeth, that the Church of England defines, that our Church (the Church of Rome) erreth in matter of Faith Artic. 19 The words of the Article are, Non solum quoad agenda & Ceremoniarum ritus, verum etiam in iis quae credenda sunt, that is, Not only in Practical Observations and Ceremonial rites, but also in those things which are to be believed, that is (to use Cardinal Cajetans' distinction), Not in those things which are de fide formaliter, in necessary Fundamental Articles (for we acknowledge that the Church of Rome doth still retain the essentials of Faith), but in those things which are fidei materialiter, in inferior Questions which happen in things to be believed, that is to say Opinions, wherein himself acknowledgeth that a particular Church may err. That this is the right sense of the Article appeareth hence; that the Article doth contradistinguish Credenda or things to be believed, not to Opinions, but to agenda things to be practised.  
He urgeth, that we have declared four points of their faith to be vain Fictions, contradictory to God's word. Artic. 22. That is to say, their Doctrine of Purgatory, Indulgences, their Adoration of Images and Relics, Invocation of Saints. Right, four points of their new Faith, enjoined by Pius the fourth, but no Article of the old Apostolical Faith, and at the best only Opinions. Yet neither doth he cite our Article right, which doth not define them to be contrary to Scripture, but only besides the Scripture, or not well grounded upon any Texts of Scripture.  
He addeth, the like Character is given of another point Art. 28. That is Transubstantiation. Our highest Act of Devotion Art. 31. is styled a blasphemous fiction and pernicious imposture: that is, the Propitiatory Sacrifice of the Mass. Concerning Transubstantiation what is our Opinion, I refer him to my answer to Militier in the very beginning of it. And concerning their Propitiatory Sacrifice of the Mass, to the same answer pag. 152. Edit. 2. The true state of the Controversy, was not so clearly understood at first on either side as it is now. He cannot go one step further than we do in that cause, without tumbling into direct Blasphemy.  
It followeth, And Art. 33. that those who are cut of from the Church publicly, should be held as Heathens and Publicans. Well, here is no distinction between Roman Catholics and Protestants: And Franciscus a Sancta Clara, in his Paraphrastical Exposition of the English Articles, giveth this judgement of this Article, This Article is Catholic, and agreeable as well to holy Scripture as to antiquity. Then why doth he snarl at this Article which he cannot except against? Because he conceiveth that the Article meaneth Catholics, or at least doth include them, judge Reader what a spirit of Contradiction d●th possess this man, who when he is not able to pick any quarrel at the words of the Article, calumniateth the meaning, upon his own groundless suspicion.  
But nothing was more common in the mouths of our Preachers, then to call the Pope Antichrist, the Church of Rome the Whore of Babylon, Idolatrous, Superstitious, Blasphemous: and to make up the Measure of his Forefathers sins, the Bishop calls here the two Principles of Unity in Faith and Government, errors and Falsehoods. If any of our Preachers being exasperated 〈◊〉 some such Boutifeus as himself, have in thei● Pulpits used any Virulence or Petulanc● against the Church of Rome; Let him mak● use of his stile against them, who wil● furnish him with Lettuce suitable to hi● Lips; What is that to the Church of England? what is that to us? Quid immerentes hospites vexat Canis— Ignavus adversus lupos? Let him but observe what Liberty be himself taketh, without any manner of Provocation. But as for myself he doth me notorious wrong, I did not mention any Principles of Unity in this place, nor so much as dream of them, but that he must needs bring them in by head and shoulders, in every Paragraph. All I said was this, That we do not separate from other Churches, but from their Accidental Errors: but some men are like Nettle● touch them gently and they sting you.  
The first part of our Moderation was, not to censure other Churches for no Churches, nor deny them possibility of Salvation, nor thrust them from our Communion; which I showed in the Example of St. Cyprian. In answer to this he showeth the unlawfulness of Communicating with Idolaters, which is reconciling Christ with Antichrist. Was not this impertinent, if he himself were judge?  
I said, it might be very lawful in some cases, to communicate with material Idolaters Heretics and Schismatics, (that is such as err through ignorance and frailty, not obstinacy) in Religious Duties. And for proof hereof, I produced the instance of the Primitive Christians, communicating in some cases with the Heretical Arr●ans, and the Schismatical Novatians. He demands first who forbids them to go visit the sick? I add, or pray with them also? which was as much as I said there, but because he falleth with such Violence upon the point, I will now take the Liberty to express myself more fully. First, it is to be remembered that I did speak only of Material Idolaters Heretics or Schismatics, not Formal. Secondly, of pious Offices not of Idolatrous Acts, nor any thing favouring Heresy or Schism. Thirdly, I do new exclude case of Scandal, for just scandal may make that Act to be unlawful, which in itself is Lawful. Fourthly, I except cases of Just Obedience, the prohibition of a lawful Superior Civil or Ecclesiastical, may make that Act to be unlawful, which was Indifferent. Lastly, I distinguish between persons Learned and grounded in Religion, and persons unlearned and ungrounded; the former may and aught to communicate with Idolaters Heretics and Schismatics, as far as they can with a good Conscience, to gain them to the truth; the latter are obliged not to come over near to pitch, lest they be defiled.  
The Question being thus stated, I believe the main point hath no great Difficulty in it. For they who are Idolaters Heretics or Schismatics only materially, not formally, that is, against their meanings resolutions and intentions, are no Idolaters Heretics or Schismatics, in the eyes of God or discerning men: neither are they out of the Pale of the Church, or out of the way of Salvation as the Bishop of Chalcedon saith most truly, 
De Fundament. cap. 2. pa. 62.  We allow all those to have saving Faith, to be in the Church, in way of Salvation, for so much as belongeth to Faith, who hold the Fundamental points, and invincibly err in not Fundamentals. But all Idolaters Heretics and Schismatics, who are only materially Idolatrous Heretical or Schismatical, do err invincibly: for if they erred vincibly, than they were formal Idolaters Heretics or Schismatics.  
Thus much I lay down for certain; the rest I only propose, that although they were formal Heretics or Schismatics, yet they are not altogether out of the Pale of the Church, but only in part, Ex ea parte in tex●urae compage de●inentur, 
Aust. li● 1. de baptis. cont. Donat.  in cae●era scissi sunt, So far they are woven into the web, for the rest they are divided, as St. Austin saith, And Bellarm●ne out of him acknowledgeth, that they are absolutely in the Church, until they go out of it by Obstinacy, (which they who ate only materially Heretics or Schismatics do not): and after they are gone out of the Church by Obstinacy, yet they are still in the Church secundum aliquid non simpliciter, 
Bell. d● Eccl. l. 3. ca 4.  not absolutely but respectively or in part. And after he hath vapoured a long time to no purpose, thus much is acknowledged by himself, 
pag. 585.  as long as Schismatics are not hardened into an Obstinacy (as no Schismatics are who are only materially Schismatical), there is a prudential Latitude allowed by the Church, delaying her Censures as long as she can possibly, without wronging her Government; as was de facto practised in England till the 10 of Queen Elizabeth. This is full as much as I said, that it may be lawful to communicate in some cases with material Schismatics.  
And whatsoever I said, was rather to make a Charitable Construction of their material Idolatry, than out of fear that they should be able, to attaint us of any Schism either material or formal: if he had any thing of reality to object against us, he would be ashamed to intimate our inclinations to favour arianism, which he himself knoweth our souls abhor, and which he himself knoweth to be expressly condemned, in the second Article of our Church. He may find my Instances of the Primitive Christians, communicating with the Arrians and Novatians in Church Offices, in my answer to the Bishop of Chalcedons Preface, pa. 36, if he have any thing to say to them. Neither was it at the first sprouting of the Arrian Heresy, but after they had form several Doxologies to themselves; nor at the First beginning of the Novatian Schism, but towards the Conclusion of it. I cited St. Cyprian for no other purpose, but to show that his moderation in abstaining from censuring did preserve him free from Schism, although he was in an error. When Optatus called the Donatists' his Brethren, he did not mean his Brethren in Adam, but his Brethren in Christ, and wonders why his Brother Parmenian (a Donatist) would rank himself with Heretieks, who were falsifiers of the Creed. If this be the infallible mark of an Heretic, Let Pius Quartus and his party look to themselves.  
I disliked a position of his, which the Reader shall have in his own words, I cannot say my Religion is true, but I must say the Opposite is false; mine is good, but I must say the Opposite is naught; mine necessary, but I must judge that which is inconsistent carries to damnation. Therefore who does not censure a Contrary Religion, holds not his own certain, that is, hath none. Upon this he pursueth me with a full Cry, that the Common Principle of Nature [if any thing be true the Opposite is false], or [a thing cannot both be and not be at once], is denied by the Bishop. Stay Mr. Serjeant, be not so fierce; the Bishop knoweth as well as yourself, that the disjunction of Contradictories is eternal: and it seemeth by what passed lately between us, that he understandeth the Rules of Opposition or right Contradiction better than yourself.  
First the Emphasis lieth not in the word [true], but in the words [say] and [censure]. Cannot a man believe or hold his own Religion to be true, but he must necessarily say or censure another man's, which he conceiveth to be opposite to it, to be false. Truth and Falsehood are Contradictory, or of eternal Disjunction; but there is a mean, between believing or holding mine own Religion to be true, and saying or censuring another man's (which perhaps is opposite) to be false, both more prudential and more charitable, that is, silence; to look circumspectly to myself, and leave other men to stand or fall to their own Master. S. Cyprian did believe or hold his own Opinion of Rebaptisation to be true, yet did not censure the opposite to be false, or remove any man from his Communion for it. Rabshakeh was more censorious than Hezekiah, and down right Atheists then conscionable Christians.  
Secondly, that which he calleth his Religion, is no more in truth then his Opinion; and different Opinions are styled different Religions. In opinions it is not necessary to hold with any party, much less to censure other parties. Sometimes seeming different Opinions are both true, and all the Opposition is but a Contention about words, and then mutual censures are vain: sometimes they are both false, and then there is more use of Mutual Charity then mutual Censures: and evermore whether true or false, an Error against Charity, is much greater than a mere speculative error in judgement. Prejudice and self-love are like a coloured glass, which makes every thing we discern through it, to be of the same colour: and on the otherside rancour and animosity, like the tongue infected with Choler, maketh the sweetest meats to taste bitter; In each respect censures are dangerous and his principle pernicious, that He who doth not censure every Religion which he reputeth contrary to his own, hath no Religion.  
I set down some Principles, whereof this is the first, [particular Churches may fall into Errors.] He answereth, 'tis true if by Errors he means Opinions only. No, I mean Fundamental Errors also: and not only fall into some Fundamental Errors, but apostate from Christ and turn Turks, and change their Bible into the Alchor●a; whereof we have visible experience in the world. He answers, that Principle is not so undeniable as I think, in case that Particular Church adhere firmly to her rule of Faith, Immediate Tradition. Well, but we see visibly with our eyes, that many particular Churches have not adhered to any Tradition, Universal or Particular, Mediate or Immediate, but have abandoned all Apostolical Tradition, then to what purpose serveth his Exception, in case that Church adhere firmly to immediate Tradition, when all the World seeth that they have not adhered firmly to Apostolical Tradition? His Preservative is much like that, which an old Seaman gave a freshwater Passenger when he was to go to Sea, to put so many pebble stones into his mouth, with assurance that he should not cast, whilst he held them between his teeth. What sort of Tradition ought to be reputed Apostolical, what not, I have showed formerly.  
My second Principle was, that [all Errors are not Essentials or Fundamentals]. He demands, what is this to his Proposition which spoke of Religion, not of Opinions? Very much, because he maketh Opinions to be Essentials of his Religion (as we see in the new Creed of Pius of fourth), so do not we. To the third Principle we agree thus far, that an Error de side formaliter, or in those things which are Essentials of Faith doth destroy the being of a Church. I add, that Errors in those things, Quae sunt fidei materialiter, that is, in Inferior Questions which happen in or about things believed, or which are not in Essentials, howsoever they may be lately crowded into the Catalogue of Essentials, do not destroy the being of a Church.  
My fourth Principle was, that [every one is bound according to the just extent of his power, to free himself from such Errors as are not in Essentials.] He answereth, Why so my Lord? if those errors be not Essential, they leave according to your own Grounds sufficient means of Salvation, and the true being of a Church; How prove you then you ought to break Church Communion? etc. As if no Errors ought to be remedied, but only those which are absolutely exclusive from all hope of Salvation: as if those Errors which are only impeditive of Salvation, ought not to be eschewed. The least Error maintained or committed against the dictate of Conscience is a sin; every good Christian ought to do his uttermost endeavonr to free himself from sin; it is not lawful to do evil that good may come of it. Yes, saith he, but not to break Church Communion which is essentially destructive to the being of a Church, or to endanger our souls where there is no necessity. First, they who free themselves from known Errors, do not thereby break Church— Communion: but they who make their Errors to be a Condition of their Communion. Let him hear the Conclusion of the Bishop of Chalcedon. 
Brief Survey cap. 2. s. 4.  In case a Particular Church do require profession of her Heresy, as a Condition of Communicating with her, Division from her in this case is no Schism or sin, but virtue and necessary; Where he speaketh only of material Heresy. It was they who made their Errors the Condition of their Communion, and therefore the Schism and sinlyeth at their doors. Secondly, Schism doth not destroy the being of a Church, for the Church continueth a Church still, after the Schismatics are gone out of it: but it destroyeth the Schismatics themselves. Lastly, to free ourselves from known Errors, when they are made Conditions of Communion, is so far from being dangerous to salvation, that as the Bishop confesseth truly, it is virtue and necessary.  
The second proof of our Moderation was our Charity, that we left them as one should leave his Father's house, whilst it is infected with some contagious Sickness, with an hearty desire to return again so soon as it is cleansed. This Charitable desire of ours, I proved by our daily prayers for them in our Litany, that God would bring them out of the way of Error into the way of truth: and particularly by our prayer on Good Friday for them, That God would have mercy upon all Heretics, and fetch them home to his Flock, that they may be saved among the remnant of true Israelites, and be made one fold under one Shepherd jesus Christ our Lord. And this our Charity is the more conspicuous by this, that in bulla caenae, that is the next day before, anniversarily, they do as solemnly curse and Anathematise us. To this he answereth, first that they do more for us, and hazard their life's daily to convert us. They hazard their lives to serve a foreign interest; not to convert, but to pervert as many as they can; not to sow good seed in the Lord's Field, but to superseminare, or sow Tares above the wheat. We should thank them more to stay at home, then to compass Sea and Land to gain Proselytes as the Pharisees did, and made them twofold more the Children of Hell than themselves. He saith, that this is the solemn Custom of their Church every Good Friday. Let it be so: but they have not the same incentive and provocation which we have, we do not curse and Anathematise them the day before, as they do us. This Advantage we have over them, that we render blessing for cursing, which they do not.  
He addeth, that they cannot be understood under the notion of Heretics; first because we acknowledge theirs to be a true Church, and therefore not heretical; Secondly they are of Christ's Flock already, and therefore not reductble to his Flock. To the First ● answer, that a particular Church which is only materially Heretical, not formally, doth still continue a true Church of Christ. The Bishop of Chalcedon understood these things much better than himself, this is confessed by him in the place formerly alleged, 
Brief Survey cap. 2. sect. 4.  A particular Church may be really Heretical or Schismatical, and yet morally a true particular Church, because she is invincibly ignorant of her Heresy or Schism. We agree with him wholly in the sense, only we differ in the expression. What he calleth really Heretical, we style materially Heretical; and what he calleth morally a true Church, we use to style Metaphysically a true Church, that, is by truth of Entity not of Morality. Secondly I answer, that the Flock of Christ is taken variously, sometimes more largely, sometimes more strictly; more largely for all those that are In domo, by outward profession; more strictly for those who are Ex domo, so in the Church, that they are also of the Church, by inward Sanctification. And our Collect hath reference to this later acception of this word [Flock]: So Fetch them home blessed Lord to thy Floek, that they may be saved.  
He taketh it ill, that our Church hath changed these words in the Missal [recall them to our Holy Mother the Catholic and Apostolic Church], into this dwindling puling puritanical expression, of [one Floek and one Fold under one Shepheard]. Whether it be because he hath a Pick against Scripture phrases, as sounding too preacherlike; or rather because our Church did presume to name the right Shepherd jesus Christ, and not leave it to their Glosses to entitle the Pope to that Office. But certainly the Authority of the Catholic Church, is not formidable at all to any Genuine Sons of the Church of England.  
I do readily acknowledge, that it is the duty of each Orthodox Church to Excommunicate Formal Heretics, and them who swerve from the Apostles Creed as the rule of Faith: but this doth not oblige the Church of England to Excommunicate all material Heretics, who follow the dictate of their conscience, in inferior Questions which are not Essentials of Faith, and do hold the truth implicitly in the preparation of their minds. Neither do I ever know that the Church of England did ever excommunicate Papists in gross qua tales, but only some particular Papists, who were either convicted of other Crimes, or found Guilty of Contumacy. It were to be wished, that the Court of Rome would use the same Moderation, and remember how Ireneus reproved Pope Victor, that he had not done rightly, to cut of from the Unity of the Mystical body of Christ, 
Euseb. li. 5. cap. 24.  so many and so great Churehes of God. This is that great nonsense, which this egregious Prevaricatour hath found in our Collect, that the English Church cannot reconcile her doctrine and her practice together. Let him not trouble his head with that, but rather how to recoucile himself with his own Church. He will have prayers to be only words no works: but his Church maketh Prayer, Fasting and Alms, 
pa. 590  to be three satisfactory works.  
My third proof of our Moderation was, that we do not challenge a new Church, a new Religion, or new holy Orders: but derive our Church, our Religion, our Holy Orders, from Christ and his Apostles by an uninterrupted Succession; we obtrude no Innovations upon others. All this is quite omitted by this great pretender to Sincerity, and yet he knoweth or may know, that there have been, pretended Reformers, who have committed all these excesses. But he catcheth hold of two words of my defence, that we have added no thing (I wish they could say as much) nor taken away any thing but Errors. To the former part he excepteth, that he who positively denies, ever adds the contrary to what he takes away; He that makes it an Article there is no Purgatory, no Mass, no prayers to Saints, hath as many Articles as he who holds the Contrary. I have taken away this answer before, and Demonstrated that no negative can be a Fundamental Article, or necessary Medium of Salvation, because it hath no Entity: That there are an hundred greater disputes and Contradictions among themselves, in Theological Questions, or in these things quae sunt fide● materialiter, than those three are between us and them: Yet they dare not say, that either the Affirmatives or Negatives are Articles of Faith. The Christian Church for fifteen hundred years, knew never more than 12. old Articles of Faith, until Pius the 4th added twelve new Articles. And now this young Pythagoras will make us more than 1200. Articles, affirmative Articles and Negative Articles, Fundamental Articles and Superstructive Articles. Every Theological truth shall either be a Fundamental Article, or an indifferent and unconcerning Opinion.  
He saith, our 22. Article defineth the Negative to Purgatory: yet I like an ill tutored Child, tell my old Crazy Mother the Church of England that she lies. 
pag. 593.  I hope by this time the Reader knoweth sufficiently, that his pen is no slander. If the Church of England did ever ill, it was when she begot him. Neither do I tell the Church of England she lies, nor descent in the least from the Definition of the Church of England: neither doth the Church of England define any of these Questions as necessary to be believed, either necessitate med●i, or necessitate praecepti which is much less, but only bindeth her sons for peace sake not to oppose them. But he himself can hardly be excused from lying, where he telleth us the good simple Ministers did swear to maintain them. Perhaps he was one of the simple Ministers, did he ever swear to maintain them? did he ever know any man who did swear to maintain them? For him to urge such falsehoods after they have been so often detected, is double effrontery, Periisse puto ●ui pudor periit. He inferreth further, By the Bishop's Logic, these propositions that there are not two Gods, that the devils shall not be saved, nor the Saints in Heaven damned, that there is no Salvation but through Christ; must cease to be Articles of Faith, and become indifferent unconcerning Opinions, because they are Negative. I wish no more disparagement to any man, then to be the author of such an absurd assertion, Either they are Fundamental Articles, or unconcerning Opinions. How should they cease to be Articles, which never were Articles? That there is one God, and one Saviour jesus Christ, that the life of the Saints is everlasting, and the Fire of the devil's Everlasting, are Articles of Faith: but every thing which may be deduced from these, is not a distinct Article of Faith.  
To the latter part of my plea that we took nothing away but weeds, he pleadeth, first that it is but a self supposition, or a begging of the Question. By his leave, I have demonstrated that all the Branches of Papal power, which are in controversy between them and us, are all gross Usurpations and weeds, which did never sprout up in the Church of England until after 1100 years; no man can say without shame, that such were planted by Christ or his Apostles. Secondly he excepteth, that to take away Errors, is a requisite act of justice, not a proof of Moderation: On the contrary, therefore it is a proof of Moderation, because it is a requisite Act of justice; all virtue consisteth in the mean or in a moderation. It is not his particular, pretended, supposititious Tradition, which doth secure us that Christ was, and that the Holy Scripture is the Genuine word of God: but the Universal and perpetual Tradition of the Catholic Church of Christ.  
My last proof of our Moderation was, that we are ready in the preparation of our minds to believe and practice, whatsoever the Catholic Church of this present Age doth believe and practise. And this is an infallible preservative to keep a man within the Pale of the Church, whosoever doth this Cordially, cannot possibly be a formal Heretic or Schismatic, because he is invincibly ignorant of his Heresy or Schism; 
Ang. Epi. 48.  No man can have just cause to separate his Communion, a Communione orbis Terrarum, from the Communion of the Christian world. If he would have confuted this, his way had been to have proposed something which the Christian World united doth believe or practise, which we are not ready to believe or Practise. This he doth not so much as attempt to do, but barketh and raileth without rhyme or reason. First he telleth us we say that there is no Universal Church. Choose Reader whether thou wilt believe him or our Leiturgy, wherein we pray daily, that God will inspire the Universal Church with the Spirit of Truth Unity and Concord. He telleth us, that they do not doubt but we have renounced our Creed. Choose Reader whether thou wilt believe him or our Leiturgy, wherein we make profession daily of the Apostolic, Nicene, and Athanasian Creeds. He telleth us, that we have renounced our reason. If he had said only that we had lost our reason, it is more than any man in his right wits would say: but to say we have renounced our reason, is incredible.  
The reason of all this is, because we give no certain Rule to know a true Church from an Heretical. He supposeth, that no Heretical Church is a true Church. The Bishop of Chalcedon may instruct him better, that an Heretical Church is a true Church whilst it erreth invincibly. He saith that he hath lived in Circumstances, to be as well acquainted with our Doctrine as most men are: Yet he professeth that if his life were at stake, be could not Determine absolutely upon our Constant Grounds, Whether Presbyterians Anabaptists or Quakers are to be excluded from the Universal Church or no. The nearer relation that he hath had to the Church of England, the more shame for him to scoff so often at the supposed Nakedness of his Mother, and to revile her so virulently, without either ground or Provocation, which gave him his Christian being. He hath my Charitable judgement of Presbyterians, in my Reply to the Bishop of Chalcedons Epistle. And for the other Sects, it were much better to have a little patience and suffer them to die of themselves, then trouble the world so much about them: they were produced in a Storm and will die in a Calm. He may be sure they will never molest him, at any Council either General or Occidental. It is honour enough for them to be named in earnest by a Polemic writer.  
But what manner of Disputing is this, to bring Questions in stead of Arguments? As what new Form of Discipline the Protestants have introduced? What are the certain Conditions of a right Ecumenical Council? What is the Universal Church, and of what particular Churches it doth consist? What are the notes to know a true Church from an Heretical? We have introduced no new discipline, but retained the old. Our Conditions of a right Ecumenical Council, are the same they were, not altogether so rigorously exacted in case of invincible necessity. We are readier to give an account of ourselves, then to censure others: either to intrude ourselves into the Office of God, to distinguish perfectly formal Schismatics from material; Or into the Office of the Catholic Church, to determine precisely who ought to be excluded from her Communion, who not. We exclude all those whom undoubted General Counsels have excluded, the rest we leave to God, and to the determination of a free Council as General as may be. But because I would not leave him unsatisfied in any thing, I am contented to admit their own Definition of the Universal Church, That is, the Company of Christians knit together by the profession of the same faith, and the Communion of the same Sacraments, under the Government of lawful Pastors. Taking away that purple patch, which they have added at the latter end of it, for their own Interest, And especially of the Roman Bishop, as the only Vicar of Christ upon Earth. And if they had stinted at a Primacy of Order, or beginning of unity, I should not have excepted against it.  
He objecteth, that Protestants have no grounds to distinguish true believers from false. That were strange indeed, whilst we have the same Scriptures, interpreted by the same perpetual Tradition of the Universal Church, according to the same Analogy of Faith (wherein we give this honour to the Fathers, not to be Authors but witnesses of Tradition); whatsoever grounds they have to distinguish true believers from false, we have the same. But because I made the Apostles Creed to be the rule of Faith, he objecteth, First, than the Puritans who deny the Article of Christ's descent into Hell, must be excluded quite from the Universal Church. If they be so, what is that to the Church of England? if they be turned out, yet let them be heard first. They plead that the manner of Christ's descent is not particularly determined: but let it be determined or not, they ought to be turned out of the Universal Church by a General Council; and it may be they will submit to the Authority of a General Council, than there will need no turning out. Secondly he objecteth, So a man may reject all Government of the Church, the Procession of the Holy ghost, all the Sacraments, all the Scriptures, and yet continue a Member of God's Church. Why so? When I said the Creed was a ●ufficient Rule of Faith, or Credendorum of things to be believed; I neither said nor meant, that it was regula agendorum, a Rule of such things as are to be practised; such as the Acts of discipline and of the Sacraments are. The Creed contained enough for Salvation, touching the Procession of the Holy Ghost, before the words [Filioque] were added to it: and there is great cause to doubt, that the Contentions of the Eastern and Western Churches about this Subject, are but a mere Logomachy or strife about words. The Scriptures and the Creed are not two different Rules of Faith, but one and the same Rule, dilated in the Scripture, contracted in the Creed; the end of the Creed being to contain all Fundamental points of Faith, or a summary of all things necessary to Salvation, to be believed Necessitate medii: But in what particular writings all these fundamental points are contained, is no particular fundamental Article itself, nor contained in the Creed, nor could be contained in it; since it is apparent out of Scripture itself, that the Creed was made and deposited with the Church as a Rule of Faith, before the Canon of the new Testament was fully perfected. Arrians and Socinians may perhaps wrest the words of the Apostles Creed, to their Heretical Sense: but not as it is explained by the first four General Counsels, which all Orthodox Christians do admit. He saith, they and we differ about the sense of two Articles of the Creed, that is the descent of Christ into Hell, and the Catholic Church, but setteth not down wherein we differ. He hath reason to understand our Differences, having been of both Churches: but I for my part do rather believe, that he understandeth neither part right. Howsoever it be, the Different Sense of an Article doth make an Heretic, after it is defined by the Universal Church, not before.  
He saith, he hath already showed in the foregoing Section, that the Protestant Grounds, have left no Order and Subordination of Universal Government in God's Church. But he hath neither shown it in the foregoing Section, nor any where else, nor is able to show it. We have the same subordination that the Primitive Church, of Inferior Clergy men to Bishops, of Bishops to Archbishops, of Archbishops to Patriarches, and of Patriarches to a General Council, or as General as may be. Let him show any one link of this Subordination that we have weakened. I said [we acknowledge not a Virtual Church, or one man as infallible as the Universal Church]: He rejoineth, Nor they neither. I wish it were so Generally: but the Pope and Court of Rome, who have the power of the Keys in their hands (whom only we accuse in this behalf) do maintain the Contrary; that a General Council without the Pope may err; that the Pope with any Council General or particular, cannot err; that the infallibility of the Church is radicated in the Pope, by virtue of Christ's prayer for S. Peter, that his faith should not fail, not in a company of Counsellors, nor in a Council of Bishops; that the Pope cannot define temerariously, in matters of Faith or good manners, which concern the whole Church. What a General Council is, and what the Universal Church is, and who ought to be excluded from the one or the other as Heretics, I have showed already; namely, all those and only those, who do either renounce their Creed, the badge of their Christianity, the same Faith whereinto they were baptised; or who differing about the sense of any Article thereof, have already been excluded as Heretics, by the sentence of an undoubted General Council.  
Howsoever he sleighteth the Controversies which they have among themselves, concerning the last resolution of Faith, as if they were of no moment: yet they are not of so little concernment to be so slighted. What availeth it to say they have the Church for an infallible judge; whilst they are not certain or do not know what the Church is, or who this infallible judge is? May not a Man say unto them as Elijah said unto the Israelites, Why halt ye between two Opinions? Or rather why halt yet betwixt five or six Opinions? If the Pope alone be infallible judge, follow him; If a General Council alone be this infallible judge, follow it; If the Essential Church be the infallible judge, Adhere to it; If the Pope and a General Council, o● the Pope and a particular Council, or the Pope and his Conclave of Cardinals, be this infallible judge, follow them.  
He telleth us, that their Universal Church, is as Visible as the sun at Noon day, to wit, those Countries in Communion with the See of Rome. Without doubt they are Visible enough: but it is as Visible, that they are not the Universal Church. What shall become of all the rest of the Christian world? They are the elder Christians, and more numerous four for one, both Patriarches and people. It is against reason that one single Protopatriarch, should cast out four out of the Church, and be both party and judge in his own Cause. But here it ends not; If the Pope will have his Visible Church to be one Homogeneous body, he must cast out a great many more yet, and it is to be suspected this very Dispatcher himself among the rest, for all his shows. They flatter the Pope with General Terms of Head, and Chief Governor, and First Mover, which signify nothing: but in reality they would have the Pope to be no more, than the Duke of Venice is in the Venetian Common wealth, that is, less than any single Senator: Or that which a General Master is in a Religious Order; 
Bell. de Concil. lib. 2. cap. 14.  Above all Priours and Provincials, but subject to a Congregation General. Wherein do these men differ from us?   

Sect. 8.  
That all Princes ●nd Republics of the Roman Communion, do in effect the same thing whic● Henry the eighth did, when they have Occasion; or at least do plead for it.  
This was the Title and this was my scope of my Fifth ground; which I made good by the Laws and decrees of the Emperors, with their Counsels and Synods and Electoral College: by the Laws of France, the Liberties of the Gallican Church, the Acts of their Parliaments, and declarations of their Universities: By the practice of the King of Spain, his Counsels, his Parliaments, in Sicily, in Castille, in Brabant and Flanders: By the sighs of Portugal and their blea●ings, and the judgement of the University of Lisbon: By the Laws and Proclamations of the Republic of Venice. This I made good, in every particular branch of Papal power which we have cast out of England; the Patronage of the English Church, The right to call and confirm Synods, to confer Bishoprics, to receive Tenths and First fruits and Oaths of Fidelity, and concerning the Supreme Legislative Dispensative and judiciary power, in all things pertaining to the external Regimeut of the Church. To all this, neither the Bishop of Chalcedon nor Mr. Serjeant, either in his former Answer or in this rejoinder (although provoked), have offered one word of Answer.  
This Plea doth utterly destroy their pretence of Divine right and of uninterrupted Tradition, for all these Branches of Papal power. Can any man be so stupid as to Imagine that to be of divine right, which was first tacked into the Church, with so much Opposition, after eleven hundred years? or that to be grounded upon perpetual and Universal Tradition, which hath been opposed in all Ages since it was devised, in all places, by all sorts of persons; Kings and their Parliaments and Counsels, Synods and Universities, Divines and Lawyers? What shameful Tergiversation is this, which no ingenious Adversary could be guilty of, but out of invincible necessity? Thus he served me where I produced all our old English Laws. Thus he served me where I produced their own Authors to testify the intolerable extortions and Usurpations of the Roman Court. Thus he serveth me here, and in place of so many laws and Proclamations, and Placaets, and Synodall Acts, and judgements of Universities: he shuffleth in so many of his fiddle-faddle Contradictions, which are not all worth a deaf Nut. If it were not that I have proceeded so far already; and Toto devorato 'Bove, turpe est in Cauda deficere, I would not Vouchsafe to answer them but with Contempt.  
Thus he begins, Nine or ten self Contradictions in one Section. He speaketh modestly, if there be one, there are nine hundred. This word [in effect] saith he, deserves a Comment. It hath a Comment, wherein his feigned Contradictions were satisfied, before they were hatched by him; the more uningenuous person he, to take no notice of it. He may find it in my reply to the Bishop of Chalcedon cap. 7. s. 2. pa. 243. Other Princes of the Roman Communion have made laws as well as we, to renounce and abrogate all those branches of Papal Authority which we cast out, that is, only Papal Usurpations: but neither they nor we ever defined against Essential right. We deny not to the Pope a Superiority of Order above the Archbishop of Canterbury, but we deny him a Superiority of power in the Exterior Court, that is, we deny him the supreme judiciary Power: so did they. King Henry the eighth abolished the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome within his Dominions, but the Emperors did not so; If they did not so, yet if they pleaded for it, or justified it, it is as much as I said: And if they did it by parcels (as I have showed they did) though they did it not in gross, it is the same thing in effect. Our Ancestors threatened the Pope to make a wall of Separation between him and them, not by making a new Law, for it was the Common Law of England; but by declaring the Law, by executing the Law: And though they had threatened him to make one general Law, against all his Usurpations in gross; yet formerly having made single Laws against the same in particular, it was but the same in effect. This sucking Contradiction hath been answered sufficiently in the last Section. He saith, our Controversy is not about the extent of Papal Power, but about the right itself. The just Contrary is true; Our Controversy is only about the extent of Papal Power, or about those particular Branches of Papal power which we have cast out. He loves to hover in Generals: but we shall bring him willingly, or against his will, to descend to particulars.  
He taketh notice here, of my complaining that they answer not particulars, and I assure the Reader that if their cause would have born it, they would have answered them. Observe but how tame he is upon this Provocation, that useth to be so fierce without any Provocation. All the Answer it doth extort from him is, Was ever man so ignorant of the common Laws of Disputing? Needs any more answer to be given to particulars which one yields to, then to say he grants them? If he be over much acquainted with the Laws of disputing, Reddat mihi Minam Diogenes; Let him who tanght me Logic give me my Money again. But it is well we have his Concedo omnia &c, We grant all his particular Instances of these Contests between Kings and Popes: Yet not so very well neither; for what he granteth with one hand, he taketh away with the other, Not entering into that dispute, how far they were done justly, how far unjustly, which is little to our purpose, since the Authority itself is acknowledged on both Sides. It is little to their purpose indeed, but it is much to ours. Is the Papal Power acknowledged, where the Pope's Sovereign Power, his Legisllative power, his judiciary Power, his dispensative power are all opposed? Much good may his dry Papacy (as he pleaseth to call it sometimes) do him. In every one of these Instances, besides mere matter of Fact, there is an Inference to matter of right. The Common Laws of Disputing require that he should have answered that, as well as granted the other. If his Dispatches be such as this, he may dispatch more answers in a day, then St. Austin could have made Oppositions in a year.  
When I said, what is the Ground of his Exception, Nothing but a Contradiction? he urgeth, that I make account a Contradiction is a matter of nothing. No, but I meant that his vain Objecting of Imaginary Contradictions, is a matter of nothing. Twenty of them will not amount to one Fleabiting: and I showed him, that this ridiculous Contradiction which he bringeth here, is such an one. The pretended Contradiction is this, that their Doctrine concerning the Pope is injurious to Princes, and prejudices their Crowns: and yet, that they hold and do the same in effect against the Pope that Protestants do. A doughty Contradiction; both parts are as true as can be, referendo singula singulis, referring what I said to the right Subject, as I applied it. The Doctrine of the Pope and Court of Rome is injurious to Princes, (of whom I speak expressly and no others:) and yet sovereign Princes and their Counsels have held and done, the same things against the Pope in effect that Protestants do. Just such another Contradiction as this, The Guelphs are for the Pope against the Emperor: yet the Gibellines are for the Emperor against the Pope, and both Factions Roman Catholics. Thus he changeth Subjects, and Predicates, and times, and respects, and all Rules to make a Contradiction. But his defence is more ridiculous than his pretended Contradiction, That the substance of the Pope's Authority is the point which belongs to me to impugn. So the Contradiction lieth not in what I did say, but what I should have said, or rather what he would have had me to have said. When his Substance of Papal Authority, hath lost all its extent (which he gives every man leave to question), it is an Indivisible indeed. His second Exception is just such another. I pleaded that [I speak expressly of the Pope and Court of Rome]: He rejoineth, No my Lord, but I would not let you change ●he Sub●ect of the whole Question. If he will change my sense, he must take the Contradiction upon himself. These are the Common Rules of disputing with this great dictator in Logic.  
I chanced to say, that [our Religion and theirs is the same]. He bids me answer seriously, whether the Roman Religion and ours do not differ in this very point of the Pope's Supremacy? If the Roman Religion be the Christian Religion, than our Religion is the same. Every Difference in this point or another point, doth not make a Divers religion. A Garden weeded and a Garden unweeded is the same Garden. We esteem it an honour to be Christians, and no Dishonour to us that we are no Papists; what they think of us concerneth themselves not us. We do gladly admit the old Apostolical Rule of Religion: but we like not their new Rules or new Creeds. And we are ready for peace sake, to attribute as much to the Pope as many of their own Doctors do, that is, a Primacy of Order or beginning of Unity: and the not accepting of this, renders them guilty of Schism and breaking the Unity of God's Church.  
He demandeth, if these rigorous Assertions be not the General Tenet of their Church, whom do we impugn? We impugn the Pope and Court of Rome, whose Tenets these Rigorous Assertions are, upon which they grounded their manifold Usurpations, which we have cast out deservedly; and for so doing they have excommunicated us, and so broken the Unity of the Church. The substance of the Pope's just Authority is no more than a Primacy of Order, or beginning of Unity at the most; This we have not cast out. And this Act we can justify, by betier Logic than he can oppose it. We know the Pope hath sometimes remitted of his rigour, when he was not able to make good his sentence by force: but it will trouble him to find one instance of a Pope who hath ever retracted his unjust censures out of pure Conscience, or acknowledged his unjust Usurpations. Whether he did or no, we do not much regard, being done with an erring Key. Many Millions of Christians are saved, which are out of his Catholic world.  
Next follow two heavy Contradictions, able to make Miloes' back crack with their weight. Take them in his own words, for they are even absurd enough without any Aggravavation. The Bishop said, that all Catholic Kings, abetted by their Doctors and Casuists, did resist the Pope in his Usurpations, but here to show how some Doctors at sometimes escaped the Pope's Clutches, he saith, that the Pope and his Court have something else to do, then to inquire af●er the Tene●s of private Doctors. Why may not this grow to be a Contradiction in time? It is no Conciliation already. The other Contradiction is yet more silly. I said, perhaps some of those Doctors lived about the time of the Counsels of Constance and Basile: that is one Enuntiation, what is the other? Nay there is none at all of mine. Yet he cryeth score up another self contradiction. How? A Contradiction of one Proposition? A Contradiction with a Perhaps? Such a Contradiction was never heard of in our days, nor in the days of our Forefathers. But though it be not a self Contradiction, yet perhaps it may contradict the truth: No truly, it con●●adicts the Truth no more than itself. I will take away the [perhaps] to give him Line enough. Some of the Opposers lived in this last Age: Yet the Bishop saith some of them lived in the time of the Counsels of Constance. This is the first time that ever a Contradiction was pretended betwixt two particular Propositions such as these. He saith, that none can tell what I mean by their living out of the Pope's reach▪ I told him myself, their being protected by Sovereign Power; My lord the Emperor defend me with the Sword, and I will defend the with the Penne.  
He saith, what the Sorbon Doctors thought of the Court of Rome, concerns not me nor the Question. They ever valued the Pope's Supremacy as a point of Faith, for the not doing of which we are cast out of the Church. He will find, that it doth both concern me and the Question. If the Court of Rome had not obtruded another manner of Supremacy, than the Sorbon Doctors allowed, this Schism had never been. For all the Pope's Supremacy, they radicated Ecclesiastical power in the Church; they subjected the Pope to the Church; they made him no Sovereign Prince but a Duke of Venice, less than the Senate, that is, less than a General Council. All that they allowed him was a beginning of Unity, where have we dissallowed that?  
He accused, Our bloody Laws and bloodier Execution. I referred him to my Reply to the Bishop of Chalcedon, where this Question is clearly stated, and fully discussed: and I expected an account from him, of that he had to say against it solidly and fully, but I see Omnibus hoc vitium est Cantoribus, inter Amicos V●nunquam inducant animum cantare rogate, Injussi nunquam desistant. He delighteth altogether in Generals; and I love to have Controversies circumstantiated, Qui pauca considerat facile pronuntiat. I bring more then pretended Fears and jealousies on our part, to justify our Laws; even gross treason by the Law of Nations on their parts.  
He saith, that in my 48. page, I clear their Religion from destroying Subjection to Princes. All I say is this [their Religion is the same with ours, that is Christian, and needeth not to be cleared from being a Source of Sedition, or an Incentive to Rebellion]. Here is something to clear Christian Religion, but not Popery qua talis, as it is obtruded. Well, but he saith he will supply that defect, I subsume, But the Supremacy of the Pope is to us a point of Faith, Therefore the holding of it, is according to him no ways injurious to Princes. Observe Reader it is he subsumes, not I: so it is he that clears them qua tales, as they are Papists, not I And how doth he clear them? By a Syllogism as memorable as his Contradictions. His Assumption is: But the Supremacy of the Pope is to us (Roman Catholics) a point of Faith▪ Therefore the holding of it is according to him (the Bishop of Derry) no ways injurious to Princes. Stay Sr. here is a Syllogism with a witness, which hath more in the Conclusion then there was in the premises, namely, according to him. Who ta●ght you this Logic, to assume for yourself, and Conclude for me?  
Here he presents the Reader with two new Contradictions of mine, as silly and senseless as the rest. They are these, that I say the Instances cited by me, were before the disloyal Opinions of the Romanists: and yet some of my Instances were in Cardinal Richlieus days, and since very lately. Adding, that I contradict myself yet once more, affirming that I hope those seditious doctrines, at this day are almost buried. What Satisfaction doth this man owe to his Reader, to conceal from him all the Precedents Laws Sentences, of Emperor's Kings Commonwealth's Universities, and to present him nothing but such Fopperies as these? I will not vouchsafe to spend any time about them, but only give the Reader an Ariadne's clew, to guide him out of this Imaginary Maze. I have showed him, what these seditious Opinions were, where they were hatched, and when; namely, in the beginning of Queen Elisabeths' Reign. 
Reply to the Bishop of Chalc. c. 3. sect. 4.  And though some few of my Instances were after that time, yet the main body of them was much more ancient; as in the Empire,, from Charles' the great to Charles the fifth, and in France from Carolus Calvus downward. So I might truly say that the Instances cited by me, were long before those disloyal Opinions were hatched: and yet they are not so lately hatched, but I hope they are almost buried at this day. A man would have thought that I deserved thanks for my Charity, not to be traduced. But it is all one, let the Reader judge who it is that trippeth up his own heels.  
When I said, It was great Pity that he was not one of Christ's Counsellors when he form his Church; It did not suppose that Christ had any Counsellors, but to tax him who takes upon him so Magisterially to dictate, what was necessary then for Christ to do. This I called sauciness, and justly. Good Christians (as I told him formerly) ought to argue thus, Christ form his Church thus, Therefore this is the best Form: not thus, This is the best Form, therefore Christ Form it after this manner. The only reason why I cited that text of St. Paul, 
Ephes. 4. 4.  One Body, one Spirit, one Hope, one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism, one God and Father of all was this; that St. Paul reckoning up seven Bonds of Unity, should omit this which Mr. Sergeant makes to be the only Bond of Unity, namely, unus Papa, One Pope, or one Bishop of Rome: Christ saw it necessary to make a Bond of Unity between the Churches; And that for this reason he gave the Principality to St: Peter, and Consequently to the Bishops of Rome. All this he supposeth on his own head, but doth not go about to prove any thing; if St. Paul had been of the same, mind, that was the proper place to have recorded it, and doubtless he would not have omitted it. This Argument which only I used, he doth not touch: but fancieth that I make these seven Bonds of Unity, or Obligations to Unity, or means of Unity, to be seven marks of those which be in the Church; which I never dreamt of. And therefore I pass it by as impertinent: Only adding, that our Ground for Unity of Faith is our Creed, and for Unity of Government, the very same form of Discipline, which was used in the Primitive Church, and is derived from them to us.  
When I wished that he had expressed himself more clearly, whether he be for a beginning of Order and Unity, or for a single head of Power and jurisdiction; I spoke of St. Peter, of whom the case is clear, that he had no more power over his Fellow Apostles than they had over him: and that the Supremacy of Power rested in the Apostolical College; All that St. Pe●er had was a beginning of Unity, What St. Peter had, the Pope may pretend a claim to, what he had not, the Pope hath no pretence for. Neither john Patriarch of Constantinople, nor any other ancient Bishop, nor yet St. Gregory himself, did ever dream of such a singular Headship of Power as he mentions, that is, that no Bishop in the Church should have Power but he; Although the Court of Rome and their adherents come very near it at this day, deriving all the power of jurisdiction of all other Bishops from the Pope. That Power which john affected, and St. Gregory impugned then, and we impugn now, is the Power of Universal jurisdiction in the Exterior Court; If that were an Heresy in him (as he confesseth,) let them look to themselves. Neither is the Bishop's Primacy of Order, so dry a Primacy as he pretendeth, nor destitute of those Privileges which belong to a Primate of Order by the Law of Nature, To call Assemblies sub paena spirituali, or to intimate the necessity of calling them, to propose doubts, to receive Votes, and to execute so far as he is trusted by the Church; This is the single Power of a Primate of Order, but besides this, he hath also a conjoint power in the Government of the Church. What he saith to the prejudice of General Counsels, I have answered formerly.  
He asks me, What other Successor St. Peter had, who could pretend to an Headship of Order, except the Bishop of Rome? I answer, that I did not speak, of what St. Peter had, but what he might have had, or may have whensoever the Representative Church, that is a General Council, should give the Primacy of Order to another Bishop. Since he is so great a Friend to the School of Sorbon, he can not well be ignorant what their learned Chancellor hath written expressly upon this Subject, in his Book de A●seribilitate Papae, not the taking away of the Papacy, but Removal of it. And what Bellarmine confesseth, that neither Scripture nor Tradition doth prove, that the Apostolical See is so fixed to Rome that it cannot be removed, He urgeth, that then the Church should remain without this Principality at the death of every Pope, until all the Churches in japan China and India had given their consent: yet I acknowledge it to be of perpetual necessity. First, he doth me wrong, I did not say positively that it is of perpetual necessity: but that I like it well enough, and the reason being of perpetual necessity, seemeth strongly to imply the necessity of the thing. Secondly I answer, that there is no need to expect such far fetched Suffrages, so long as the Primacy may remain fixed where it is, unless a General Council or one as General as may be, think fit to remove it: and if a General Council remove it, it will take order for the future succession. And this same reason doth clearly take away his answer to my instance, That as the Dying of such a Bishop Lord Chancellor of England, doth not perpetuate the Chancellourship to that Bishopric, because there is a Sovereign Prince to elect another: so the dying of St. Peter Bishop of Rome, doth not perpetuate the Primacy to that Bishopric, because a General Council when it is in being, hath power to transfer it to another See, if they find it expedient for the public good.  
The Bishop knoweth right well, that the Church of Christ is both his Spouse and his Family, both the Governess and the Governed; The Supreme Governess in respect of its Representative a General Council, to which all Ecclesiastical Officers higher or lower, whether Constituted by Christ or substituted by the Church, do owe an account; And the Governed in respect of that Universality of Christians which he mentioneth. And this sounds much more sweetly in Christian ears, then to make either the Pope the Master, or the Church of Rome the Mistress of the Church.  
He brought an Argument for the Succession of the Roman Bishop, drawn from the Vicissitude of Humane affairs. I retorted it upon himself, that Rome itself was as much subject to this Vicissitude, as any other place, [it may be destroyed with an Earthquake.] He saith, It must be an unheard of Earthquake, which can swallow up the whole Diocese: if the City be destroyed, yet the Clergy of the Roman Diocese can elect to themselves a new Bishop. But this new elected Bishop, shall be no more the Bishop of Rome after it is destroyed, But that which concerneth him and the cause more is, he proposeth my Objection by halves; I said it might be destroyed by wars also, that is both City and Diocese, and become a place for Satyrs to Dance in and Owls to screech in. As great Cities as Rome have run that Fortune; In that case what will become of his Election. I added [it may become Heretical or Mahometan]. He answereth, True, so may the whole Church, if it had pleased God so to Order causes. No, by his leave not so, Christ hath promised that his Universal Church shall never fail: but he hath not promised that Rome shall never fail. I said, [the Church never disposeth so of her Offices, as not to be able to change her Mesnagery, according to the Vicissitude of Humane affairs]. He opposeth, that I granted in the foregoing Page, that Christ himself and not the Church instituted this Prineipality or Primacy: and bids me show, that the Church hath Authority to change Christ's Institution. I did not grant it but suppose it: but whether granted or supposed, it is not material to the purpose. The Church hath no power to change Christ's Institution in Essentials: but all Ecclesiastical Officers whatsoever are her Officers, and she hath power to dispose of them, and govern them, and to alter what is not Essential.  
I know there are other meaus between Tyranny and Anarchy, besides Aristocracy, even all lawful Forms of Government, as Monarchy and Democracy: but in the Government of the Catholic Church Monarchy and Democracy had no place, unless it were in respect of Particular Dioceses or Provinces; and therefore to have named Monarchy here, had been superfluous and impertinent. But the Government of the Primitive Church in the Apostles and their Successors was ever Aristocratical, first by an equal Participation of power in the Apostles, and then by a Subordination of Bishops in their Successors; and this as well out of General Counsels as in them, as well before there were General Counsels as after. It is not my want of Memory, but his want of judgement, to pursue such shadows as these and nickname them Contradictions.  
He asks, how should a Primate of Order, who hath no power to Act at all in order to the Universal Church, have more power to prevent her good or procure her harm, than one who hath Sovereignty of power? This is his perpetual Practice, to dispute from that which is not granted. St. Peter was a Primate of Order a●ong the Apostles and no more: yet he had power to act singly as an Apostle and as a Primate among the Apostles, he had power also to Act jointly with the Apostolical College; so have all other Primates of ●rder. Whatsoever Mr. Sergeant thinks, Our Saviour thought this Form of Government as conducible to the good of his Church, both to procure her Good and to prevent her harm, as an absolute Sovereignty. I do not feast the Reader with Contradictions; Nothing is more true than my Assertion, but he abuseth his Reader with notorious Fictions.  
If the Papacy be the Bridle in the mouth of the Church, then without peradventure the Pope is the Rider; though the Papacy be not, I said enough before to let him see the, unfitness of his ludicrous Allegory, and taxed him for it: if he delight in it let him pursue it; Nos hac a Scabie tenemus ungues. How the Church doth both govern and is governed, I have showed him formerly.  
In his answer he fell into a large Encomium of the Papacy, demanding among other things, What Christian Prince can choose but be glad to have an Arbitrator so prudent, so p●●●s, so distinteressed, as a Good Pope should be and if this Authority were duly Governed? I told him that to look upon men as they should be, was to write dreaming. He rejoineth, that he looks not upon men at all in this place, but speaks of the Office itself; And challengeth me, what say you to the Office itself? I answer, first he saith not truly, for he did look at men in this place, otherwise why did he add this Condition; as a good Pope should be? And this other; If this Authority were duly governed? Certainly he who looks upon an Arbitrator so prudent so pious, so Disinteressed as a good Pope should be, looketh something upon men. And so in truth he ought to do: but his fault is, that he looks upon them as they should be, and not as they commonly are; which is the same fault I tax him with, to write Dreaming, not waking.  
Now to his Question, What say you to the Office itself? I say first, that though he hath stated it p. 624: Yet he hath not stated it at all, neither (I fear) dare he state it, nor is willing to state it. He telleth us indeed sometimes of the Substance of the Papacy, but wherein the Substance of the Papacy consists (except some General unsignificant Expressions of an Headship, or Chief Governourship, or First Movership, about which we have no Controversy with them, and which are equally appliable to a Primacy of Order and a Sovereignty of Power), he saith nothing. Whether the Pope be an absolute Monarch or a duke of Venice, inferior to the whole Senate; whether he have a Coactive power in the Exterior Court, throughout all other Prince's dominions, without their leaves; Whether he have the right to confer Bishoprics, Convocate Synods, Impose Pensions, For bid Oaths of Allegiance, and require new Oaths of Allegiance to himself, Set up Legantine Courts, Receive Appeals, make Laws, dispense with Laws at his pleasure, he saith nothing: yet these are the only Controversies we have with them, to ask what we say to the Pope's Authority, without stating of it, without stinting of it, is an unreasonable demand.  
I say secondly, that he ought to explain himself, by what right he doth challenge this Authority Divine or Humane, or only out of prudential reasons. If he challenge it by divine right or Humane right, he ought to prove the right, according to the just extent of that Authority which he doth challenge: and not wave the extent, as a thing Indifferent. If he challenge it out of prudential Reasons, it ought to be considered, whether the Hopes or the Hazards, the Advantages or Disadvantages, the Conveniences or Inconveniences of such a Form of Government particularly circumstantiated, do over balance the one or the other; And the surest trial of this is by experience. It will trouble him to find so many Advantages, which the Church and Kingdom of England have received from Papal jurisdiction, (I speak not of the Key of Order,) as may overweigh all those Disadvantages which they have sustained, by the Extortions, and Usurpations, and Malignant Influence of the Papacy. If he attribute no more power to the Pope, than all Roman Catholics universally do approve, (which is the only Rule that he giveth us, to know what is the Substance of Papal Authority), he need not be so impetuous, this Question is near an end.  
He asks whether we, and the Eastern Southern and Northern Christians, be under the Government of Patriarches or any other Common Government? I answer we and they are under the same Common Government, which the Primitive Church was under from the Days of the Apostles, long before there were any General Counsels; that was the Government of Bishops under Primates or Patriarches. For as I have said formerly, a Protarch and a Patriarch in the Language of the Primitive Church are both one. We have as much Opportunity to Convocate Synods as they had then, before there were Christian Emperors, and more: yet by such Counsels as they could Congregate, though they were not General; they governed the Church. If there be not that free Communication of one Church with another that was then, either by reason of the great distance, or our mutual misunderstanding one of another, for want of the old Canonical Epistles or Literae Formatae, the more is the Pity: We are sorry for it, and ready to contribute our uttermost endeavours to the Remedy of it.  
With these western Churches which have shaken of the Roman Y●ke, we have much more Communion, by Synods, by Letters, by Publishing our Confessions: and we might justly hope for a much nearer union yet, both in doctrine and Discipline, if God would be graciously pleased to restore an happy Peace. That we have it not already in so large a measure as we might, is their only Faults, who would not give way to an uniform Reformation. Sometimes they accuse us for having too much Communion with them, at other times they will not grant us to have any at all.  
Concerning the rest of the Western Churches which submit to the Papacy, we have the same Rules both of Doctrine and Discipline which they had, We have the same that they have, saving their Additionall Errors. We have broken no Bonds of Unity, either in Faith or Discipline; we have renounced no just Authority, either Divine or Humane; we adhere to the Apostles Creed, as the ancient and true Rule of Faith, into which alone all Christians (that ever were) have been baptised, and we renounce the upstart additional Articles of Pius the fourth. We are willing for peace sake to give the Pope the same Primacy of Order, which St. Peter had above his Fellow Apostles: but the Supremacy of power was not in St. Peter, but in the Apostolical College; neither is now in the Bishop of Rome, but in a Council of Bishops.  
He saith we maintain a larger Brotherhood than they, but never go about to show any visible Tie of Government. We show them the same Badge or Cognisance of our Christianity, that is, the same Creed, and the same Discipline or Government, that is, the same Colours, derived down from the Apostles by an uninterrupted Succession; The same Doctrine and the same Discipline is Tie enough. To take an exact View it is necessary the Organ should be perfect, the Medium fit, and the Distance convenient; if any one of these were Defective in Mr. Rosses View, he might well mistake: but I may not do him that wrong to trust your Testimony, without citing his words.  
He urgeth, If Christ have left any Unity of Government in his Church and Commanded it to be kept, and we have taken a Course to leave no such Unity, than we have rebelled against Christ and his Church, and falsely pretend to have him our Spiritual head. I admit this: now let him Assume. But you (Protestants) have taken a Course to leave no Unity of Government in the Church, which Christ left and Commanded to be kept. I deny his Assumption altogether: and he saith not one word to prove it. This is his Enthymematicall manner of Arguing.  
He proceedeth, That to have a General Council for an Ecclesiastical Head, is to confess that there is no Ordinary Unity of Government in God's Church, but extraordinary only when a Council sits. I deny this Proposition altogether, and the reason is Evident; because besides a General Council which sitteth but rarely, (neither is it needful that it should sit often, Nisi dignus Vindice nodus inciderit,) there are particular Counsels, which in lesser Exigents serve the turn as well as General. There are Patriarches and Bishops, which are Ordinary and perpetual. In an Aristocracy, it is not necessary that the Governors should be evermore actually Assembled. In the first three hundred years, there were no General Counsels held, there was less hope of ever holding them then, then now: yet there was an Ordinary Unity of Government in God's Ch●rch in those days, for which they were not indebted at all to any visible Monarch. B●t when a General Council doth sit, the Supreme Ecclesiastical power rests in it.  
He wonders why I should make the King only a Political Head, Contrary to our Common Assertion. It seemeth that though he hath been bred among us, yet he hath not been much versed in our Authors; No man that ever understood himself, made him otherwise. Yet this Political Head, hath a great Influence upon Ecclesiastical Causes and persons, in the external Regiment of the Church. He demandeth, is there any Orderly Common Tie of Government, obliging this Head to Correspond with the other head? If not, where is the Unity? I answer, yes, the direction of his Spiritual Guides, that is, his Bishops and Synods; If this Method be so great a Rarity with him, it is his own fault. He had said more properly, to Correspond with the other Heads then Head.  
He saith, It is false to say, that they have sometimes two or three heads, since there can be but one true or rightly chosen Pope. True, but the Election may be uncertain, that no man living can know the true Pope: so whether there be three Popes, or one Pope and two pretenders, yet if the right Pope cannot be made appear, it is all one relatively to the Church; If the Trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the Battle. He telleth us further, that when the See of Rome is vacant, the Headship is in the Chief Clergy whom they call Cardinals, as secure a Course as man's wit can invent. As Chief as their Cardinals are, the much greatest part of them, were but Ordinary Parish Priests and Deacons of old. The Cardinals indeed have to do with the Church of Rome in the Vacancy: but what pretence have they from St. Peter? What have they to do with the Universal Monarchy of the Church? Before he told us, that thei● Headship was Christ's own Ordination; now he telleth us that this Headship is sometimes in the College of Cardinals, and that it is as secure a Course as man's wit can invent. What a Contradiction would he make of this?  
He demandeth, doth the Harmony of Confessions show, that we have one Common certain Rule of Faith, or any particular sort of Government, obliging us to an Unity, under the Notion of Governed? I do show him one Common certain Rule of Faith, even the Apostles Creed: and a particular sort of Government, even the same was used in the Primitive Times. What am I the better? he will take no notice of them, because I will not fix upon that Rule of Faith, and that Form of Government which he Fancieth. Yet I am for Tradition as well as he, but it is Universal and perpetual Tradition: such a Tradition is the Creed, and in deed is that very Tradition which is so renowned in the Ancients.  
He chargeth me with saying, That Heretics can have no Baptism. Let him either make his accusation good, or suffer as a Falsifier. All that I say is, Turks jews Heretics and Christians, have not the same Baptism. The reason is plain, because Turks and jews have no Baptism at all. Secondly we ought to distinguish between the Baptism of Heretics, and Heretical Baptism; if the Baptism itself be good, the Administration of it by Heretics doth not invalidate it at all: but if the Heretic baptise after an Heretical Form, as without due Matter, or not in the Name of the Trinity; such Baptism is Heretical and naught. But all this is needless to understand the right scope of my words, I said that a Body cousisting of Iewes Turks Heretics and Christians, had not the same Baptism: I did not say that every one of these wanted true Baptism; He might as well charge me with saying that Christians can have no true Baptism.  
I have manifested elsewhere, that the Creed is a List of all Fundamentals: 
Sect. 1. cap. 2.  and in the same Section and Chapter the Reader shall find that the Bishop is not a Falsifier, but Mr. Serjeant, is both an egregious Calumniator and Falsifier of the Council of Ephesus. I to●ke the word Paganism, in the ancient Primitive sense for Infidelity, as it is contradistinguished to Christianity. The true reason of that Appellation was, because Country Villages did continue long in their Infidelity, after Cities were converted to Christianity. So the Turks are the only Pagans, which we have now in this part of the World. What a piece of Gotham Wisdom is this, to quarrel about names, when we agree upon the things. Turks and Pagans in my sense were the same thing: both Infidels.  
But he instructs the Learned Bishop, that the Turks acknowledge a God. So did the Pagans also, if Lactantius say true, Non ego illum Lapidem colo quem video, sed servio eiquem non video. He addeth, that I affirm the Council of Ephesus held in the year 430, Ordered something concerning Turks, which sprang not up till the year 630, and calleth this good sport. If there be any sport, it is to see his Childish Vanity. If I listed to play with words, I could tell him that the mahometans sprung up about the year 630, the Turks many Ages after. But the answer is plain and easy, the Council of Ephesus did give Orders for all Ages ensuing concerning Infidels: but Turks are Infidels, and so it gave Orders concerning Turks.  
Socinians and Arrians, may admit the Apostles Creed interpreted their own way: but they ought to admit, it as it is interpreted by the Frst four General Counsels; that they do not, and so they believe not all Fundamentals as they should do. What he Objecteth further, that Puritans hold not the Article of Christ's descent into Hell, and the Roman Catholics and Protestants differ about the sense of two other Articles, hath been answered formerly. The Puritans will tell him, that the manner of Christ's descent hath not been determined hitherto. And I doubt much, he understandeth not the Romish and English Tenets, so well as he should.   

SECT. IX.  
That the Pope and Court of Rome are most guilty of the Schism.  
My first Charge was this, That Member of any Society which leaveth its proper place, to assume an higher place in the Body, is Schismatical: But the Pope and his Party do not content themselves that the Church of Rome should be the Sister of other patriarchal Churches, and the Mother of many Churches, unless she be Lady and Mistress of all Churches; or that the Pope should be the Brother of Other Bishops, or a fellow of other Bishops (as he was styled of old), unless he may be the Lord and Master of all Bishops. That the former is his proper place, I clearly proved by Letters, not of himself to other Bishops, that might be Condiscension; as for a General to call his Officers Fellow soldiers: but of other Bishops to him; no under Officer durst presume to call his General fellow soldier. That he assumeth the other place to himself, is proved out of the new Creed of Pius the fourth, I acknowledge the Roman Church to be the Mother and Mistress of all Churches: and I promise and swear true Obedience to the Bishop of Rome, as to the Vicar of jesus Christ. And in the Oath of Allegiance which all Bishops swear to the Pope, JAB Bishop etc. will be Faith full to St. Peter, and to the holy Apostolical Church of Rome, and to our Lord Pope Alexander etc. There is a great distance between the old Brother Bishop and fellow Bishop, and this Oath of Allegiance to the Pope as to their LiegeLord.  
First he Chargeth me, that I do flatly falsify his words, which do never deny her to be a mother, but a Sister only. Either I falsified his words, or he falsified mine. My words were these, First they make the Church of Rome, to be not only the Sister of all other patriarchal Churches and the Mother of many Churches, but to be the Lady and Mistress of all Churches. The two Former Branches of Sister and Mother are both acknowledged, the last only of Lady and Mistress is denied. He falsifieth my words in his answer thus, because she takes upon her to be Mistress, where she is but Sister to other Churches. You see the word Mother is left out, and because I bring it in again as I ought, to make the Argument as it was before his Curtaling of it, I am become the Falsifier with him, and he who is the Falsifier in earnest is innocent.  
I cited the words of St. Bernard, to prove that the Pope was not Lord or Master of other Bishops, and the Roman Church a Mother of other Churches, not a Lady or Mistress. He distinguisheth between Dominam and Magistram, an Imperious proud Lady Mistress, and a Schoolmistress or Teacheresse; Adding, that they use the word Magistram in the latter sense. So they say no more than we; we do acknowledge the Church of Rome to be a Teacheresse, and the Pope a Teacher, as it is an Apostolical Church and he an Apostolical Bishop: but all the Question is of the other word Dominum, which the Pope taketh to himself as well as Magistrum; as we have seen in the Oath of Allegiance which he makes all Bishops to swear. Neither doth St. Bernard oppose proud Imperious Dominion to Gentle Dominion, but he contradistinguisheth Dominion to no Dominion; and thyself not a Lord of other Bishops, but one of them. Not a Lord of other Bishops, saith St. Bernard: A Lord of other Bishops, saith the Oath of Fidelity; I will be faithful to our Lord Pope Alexander.  
He urgeth, that the Bishop hath brought a Testimony, which asserts the Church of Rome to be the Mother of other Churches, and so of the Church of England too. St. Bernard asserted the Church of Rome to be the Mother of other Churches, so did the Bishop: but not to be the Mother of all other Churches, no more did the Bishop; particularly not of the Church of Britain, which was ancienter than the Church of Rome, and so could not be her daughter. Let them prove their right that they are our Mother, and we are ready to do our filial Duty; saving always that Higher duty which we owe to our Mother Paramount, the Universal Church. But neither can they prove their right that they are our Mother, neither is that Subjection which they Demand, the Subjection due to a particular Mother, but to an Universal Lord.  
But Schism involves in its Notion disobedience, etc. And so the Bishop concludes the Mother Schismatical because she is disobedient to her Daughter. His first error is, to make the Church of Rome to be our Mother. The second, to think that a Mother may challenge what Obedience she listeth of her Daughter. The third, that Schism consisteth altogether in the Disobedience of Subjects. Causal Schism may and doth Ordinarily consist, in the unlawfuli Injunctions of Superiors.  
My second reason to convince them as guilty of Schism, was the new Creed set out by Pius the fourth; This he calleth a Calumny. He cannot speak lower than Calumnies, Absurdities, Contradictions, Falsifications etc. A high Calumny to slander them with a matter of truth; It is such a Calumny as they will never be able to shake of. He referreth the Reader to what he hath said in the first Section, and I to my Answer there. He saith it is known that each point in that profession of Faith (that is the twelve new Articles) was held of Faith by the former Church. How? held of Faith? as an Essential of Faith? And this known? to whom? to the man in the Moon? But here is the maddest Contradiction that ever was, and might well have become his Merry Stationer. It is a Contradiction to pretend that he (Pius the 4.) made a new Creed, till it be shown that any of these points was not formerly of Faith, and be proved satisfactorily that the Apostles Creed contained all necessary points of Faith. A Contradiction? I see many men talk of Robin Hood, who never shot in his Bow: talk of Contradictions, who know not what they are. Observe the equity of these men, They Visibly insert 12 new Articles into the Creed, and then would put us to prove, that they were not of Faith before, and that all necessary points of Faith are contained in the Apostles Creed. He is resolved to keep two strings to his Bow, and knoweth not which of them to trust to. Hear you Sr. If they be Articles of Faith now, as you have made them, than they were always Articles of Faith: and all those were damned which did not believe them; but that you dare not say.  
My third Charge of Schism was, because they maintain the Pope in his Rebellion against General Counsels. Here he distinguisheth between a Schooleman and a Controvertist, to no manner of purpose, for it is altogether impertinent. There is no man who inveigheth so much against wording and Quibbling as himself, and yet the world hath not a greater Worder or Quibler than he is. Wherefore to prevent the Readers trouble and mine own, and his shifting and flinching, and to tie him within his Compass perforce; I made bold to reduce my Argument to a Syllogistical Form. They who subject a General Council, which is the Highest Tribunal of Christians, to the Pope, are guilty of Schism: But the Pope and Court of Rome, with all their maintainers, (that is, much the Greater part of of their writers,) do subject a General Council to the Pope. Therefore the Pope and Court of Rome with all their Maintainers, that is the much greater part of their Writers, are Guilty of Schism.  
Here he should have answered Punctually to the Proposition or Assumption, either by denying granting or distinguishing: but for all his calling for a Rigorous Demonstrative way, he liketh it not, because he cannot make such impertinent extravagant excursions as he useth to do, which are the only help he hath at a dead lift. All the Answer he giveth is this, He (the Bishop) is accused of a Contradiction and Nonsense, and to clear himself he tells us, he will now lay aside the one part of the Contradiction and endeavour to make good sense of the other. To what Proposition, to what ●erme doth he apply this answer? I see no Contradiction, I see no Nonsense in my discourse, nor any body living but himself. I said no such thing as he pretendeth. What doth the man mean by these waves of brainless buttered fish, by these heterogeneous incoherent Fopperies, and Chimaeraes which have no existence but in his own pate? If he mean to answer, let him do it clearly like a Scholar; since I have found this way to tie him to his matter, and restrain his torrent of words, I shall put it in practice oftener. Yet if I meet with any such thing as is substantial among his vapouring expressions, which hath but the least resemblance of an answer, though it be not reduced into Form, I will glean it out, and examine the weight of it.  
Such is this which followeth, Was it for this Opinion of the Pope above the Council etc. How were they guilty of Schism for this? unless they had denied you Communion for holding the Contrary, or pressed upon you an unconscientious approbation of it, which you know they did not. Fool not your Readers my Lord; It was not for this Tenet which you impute to the Court of Rome, but for that of the Pope's Headship or Spiritual jurisdiction over all God's Church held by all Catholics, etc. For which you are excommunicated. It is true they did not deny us Communion for holding this Opinion, nor press upon us an unconscientious Approbation of this Opinion directly, for any thing that I know: but nevertheless, they have by their power subjected a General Council to the Pope, they have procured it to be defined (though not expressly) in the Council of Florence, and to be expressly defined in the Council of Lateran under Leo the tenth. Hence it is, that all the Counsels since the Counsels of Constance and Basile and the two Pisan Counsels, have wanted Conciliary Freedom, and been altogether at the Disposition of the Popes; to prorogue them, to tranfferre them, to stin● them what matters they might handle and what not, to defer their Determinations until he had form or created a party, or wrought some of the dissenting Bishops to his will, to ratify or reject their decrees at his pleasure. When or where was it ever heard before, that there was twice as many Bishops of one Nation in a General Council, as of all other Nations in the world? Hence was that complaint of the Fathers in the Council of Trent, that the Synod was guided by the Holy Ghost sent from Rome in a Male. If it had not been for this thing, but the Fathers had been permitted freely to have proceeded in the Council of Trent, in the Resolution of that noble Question concerning the Residence and divine Right of Bishops: in all probability this great rent had been made up, and he and I had not needed to have disputed this Question at this Day.  
Thus by this Opinion and by their Sinister Practices to establish it, they are causally and formally Schismatical: and have been both the procreating and conserving Cause of this great Schism; the procreating cause, by altering the Hierarchy, and Disordering the Members, which doth necessarily produce a disturbance and Schism in the Body; and the conserving cause, by destroying the Freedom of Counsels, which are the proper Remedies of Schism. Whether these later Counsels were Occumenicall, or Occidental, or neither, is not the point in debate; They are those which they call General; They were as General as they would permit them to be; and to conclude, it was their fault that they were not more General. So though this were not the very cause alleged by them, why they did excommunicate us: yet it was one of the Causes of the Schism, and consequently of our Excommunication.  
I leave every man free to judge for himself: but for mine own part I am so great a Lover of the peace of Christendom, that I should not oppose the Bishop of Rome's headship of Order, if he would be content with it; and that is as much as many whom he styleth his own Sons do yield him. But though that be sufficient for the Catholic Church, it is not sufficient for the Court of Rome to fill their Coffers; they love not such a Dry Papacy. I dispute only whether the Pope's right be Divine, or humane, or mixed (as Gerson thought); either score may justly challenge Duty: But I am very positive, that whatsoever the Bishop of Rome hath more than this Primacy of Order or beginning of Unity, he had it by humane right, and by humane right he may lose it. Neither do I go about to deprive the Bishop of Rome, or any Bishop whatsoever of any jurisdiction purely spiritual, which was left them as a Legacy by Christ or by his Apostles: but I deny that Apparitors, or Pursivants, or Prisons are of Christ's Institution; I deny that Christ or his Apostles did ever either exercise themselves, or grant to others Authority to exercise Coactive jurisdiction in the exterior Court, over the Subjects of other Princes, within their Dominions, and without their leaves. If Subjects submit, Volenti non fit injuria, but than it is not Coactive; If Princes give leave, (as they have done in all Ages, so far as they judged it expedient for the public good), than it is very lawful: but without the Subjects submission or the Prince's leave, there may be indeed a spiritual kind of Coaction in the interior Court of Conscience, but no true coaction in the exterior Court of the Church.  
I see he understandeth not the sense of that Logical restriction, The Papacy as it is such; which signifieth not the Papacy as it ought to be, or so far as all Roman Catholics do agree about it; but the Papacy as it is Qualified in present, or as it is owned, or obtruded, or endeavoured to be obtruded by the Pope and Court of Rome. So the Papacy as it is such, is opposed or contradistinguished to the Ancient Papacy in the purer and more Primitive times, which was not guilty of those Usurpations which the modern Popes have introduced. Thus still my Contradiction doth end in his misunderstanding.  
My fourth and last charge of Schism upon the Pope and Court of Rome was thus. They who take away the Line of Apostolical Succession, throughout the world except in the See of Rome, who make all Episcopal jurisdiction to flow from the Pope of Rome, and to be founded in his Laws, to be imparted to other Bishops as the Pope's Vicars and Coadjutors, assumed by them into part of their Charge, are Schismatics: But the Pope and Court of Rome and their maintainers do thus: Therefore the Pope and Court of Rome and their maintainers, are Schismatics.  
To this Argument, he vouchsafeth no answer at all in due Form as it ought to be, and I have no reason to insist long upon his Voluntary jargon. All the Answer which he intimateth is this, that this Tenet is not General among them, but points of Faith are held generally. Here is an answerless Answer, without confessing or denying either Proposition: such an Answer doth not become one, who maketh himself so great a Master in the Art of disputing; I charge not their whole Church, but the Pope and Court of Rome, and all their Abetters and Maintainers, with the Crime of Schism. I conclude no more than I assume. He answers that the whole Church dot not hold these Tenets. What is that to the purpose? As if a Particular person, as the Pope, or a Particular Society, as the Court of Rome, or the greater part of a Church, as all their Abetters and maintainers, could not be Schismatics except the whole Church be Schismatical, which is most absurd. I am free to charge whom I will, if he will not answer for them, he may be silent: but if he undertake to be their Advocate, let him defend them in due Form as he ought, and not tell us, that he is not concerned as a Controvertist to defend any thing but Points of Faith. Which is neither better nor worse in plain English, then to run away from the Question. All our Controversy is, whether such and such pretended Privileges be Papal Rights or Papal Usurpations: If he dare not maintain them to be just rights, either by divine Law or humane Law, and refuse to contend with us when we prove them to be Usurpations; to what end doth he interest himself, and break other men's heads with the clattering noise of his Sabots.   

SECT. X.  
An Answer to their Objections.  
THeir first Objection was, that we had separated ourselves from the Communion of the Catholic Church. I answered that we hold Communion with thrice so many Catholic Christians as they do, that is, the Eastern Southern and Northern Christians, besides Protestants. He interpreteth these Christians with whom we hold Communion to be numberless Multitudes of Manichees, Gnostics, Carpocratians Arrians, Nestorians Eutichians &c. Adding, that he protesteth most faithfully, he doth not think that I have any solid reason to refuse Communion to the worst of them. Reader, learn how to value his faithful Protestations hereafter. I show that we all detest those damned Heresies, and complain of his Partiality and want of Ingenuity, to abuse the Reader with such lying suggestions, which he himself knoweth to be most false, and challenge him to show that any of us are guilty of any of these Heresies: now see what he produceth to free himself from such an horrid Calumny.  
First he saith, that the Bishop's tax is evidently this, to show some solid reasons why he admits some of these and rejects others. This is not the purging of his old Calumny, but the twisting of a new Calumny to it. Labhominate and Anathematise them all, and he will have a reason of me why I admit some of them and reject others. Well done brave disputant!  
Secondly he urgeth, Suppose he could not charge the Church of England, or any of these ot●er Churches with any of these Heresies▪ are there no other Here●sies in the world but these old ones? Or is it impossible that a new Heresy should arise? There are other Heresies in the world, and it is possible that a new Heresy my arise: but what doth that concern the Church of England? unless he think that there is no Heresy in the world, nor is possible to be, but the Church of England must be guilty if it. Worse and Worse.  
He proceedeth, that he accused not the Church of England or the Bishop for holding those material points, but that having no determinate certain Rule of Faith, they had no grounds to reject any from their Communion, who hold some common points of Christianity with them. It is well, habemus c●nfi●entem reum, Mr. Serjeant retracts his Charge; The Church of England and the Bishop are once declared innocent of those old Heresies, which he made a Muster of to no purpose▪ To let him see that I say nothing new, and how he thrasheth his own Friends blind fold: Peter Lombard, Thomas a jesus, Cardinal Tolet, and many others, do make the Question about the procession of the Holy Ghost, to be Verbal only without Reality; and that the Grecian expressions of Spiritus Filii, The Spirit of the Son, and per Filium, by the Son, do signify as much as our Filioque, and from the Son. And of the Nestorians, Onuphrius giveth this judgement, 
Onuphrius in vita julii tertii.  These Nestorians do seem to me, to have retained the name of Nestorius the Heretic rather than his errors: for I find nothing in them that savoureth of that Sect. And for the supposed Eutychians, Thomas a jesus giveth us ample Testimony, That the suspicion did grow upon a double mistake. 
Thom. a jesus Contr. l. 7. pa. 1. ca 3. & 11.  They were suspected of Eutychianisme because they retained not the Council of Chalcedon; and they received not the Council of Chalcedon, because they suspected it of Nestorianisme: but yet they accurse Eutyches for an Heretic, and so did the Council of Chalcedon Anathematise Nestorius. The same is asserted by Brerewood, 
Brerewoods' Enqu. ca 25. p. 183.  out of the Confessions of the jacobites, Nestorians, Armenians, Cophites and Abyssines. To his Objection I answer, First, that though we had no such certain Rule of Faith: yet it was not presently necessary, that we must tumble headlong into such abominable errors, as many of these Heretics held, which the Discreeter Heathen did detest. Secondly, we have a certain Rule of Faith, the Apostles Creed dilated in the Scriptures, or the Scriptures contracted into the Apostles Creed: and for that ugly Fardel of Heresies, which he mentioneth, we can show that they are all diametrally opposite to the Apostles Creed, as it is explained in the four first General Counsels. Reader have a care to presere Epicte●us his jewel, Remember to distrust such faithful or rather feigned Protestations.  
He argueth, All those Heretics had the Same Rule or Grounds of their Faith that Protestants have, namely the Holy Scripture; therefore they are all of the Protestant Communion. In good time. All those Heretics had the same Rule or grounds of their Faith, that Roman Catholics have, namely the Holy Scriptures, therefore they are of the Roman Catholic Communion. If he except, that the bare Letter of the Scriptures, is not the Ground or Rule of Faith to Roman Catholics, but the Scripture interpreted according to the Analogy of Faith and Tradition of the Church▪ the Church of England saith the very same for itself. So if this be the source of all error to abandon the Tradition of the Church, we are far enough from the source of all error. This is the only difference in this particular between me and Mr. Serjeant, what he attributeth to the Tradition of immediate Forefathers, I ascribe to the perpetual and Universal Tradition of the Catholic Church. Who would believe, that this man himself had deserted the Tradition of his Immediate Forefathers?  
That which he addeth, the Tradition of Immediate Forefathers is the only Ground of Faith's certainty, and the Denying of it more Pestilential than the Denying of the Godhead of Christ, or the asserting the worst of those errors which any of those old Heretics held, as there are two Gods, a Good God and an Evil God; is most false and Dangerous, to tumble into a certain Crime for fear of an uncertein. What he addeth concerning Sects new sprung up in England, and Luther, and Carolostadius, concerneth not us nor the present Controversy.  
I said, that some few Eastern Christians were called Nestorians, and some others by reason of some unusual expressions suspected of E●tichianisme, but most wrongfully: and in our Name, and in the name of all those Churches which hold Communion with us, I accursed all the Errors of those Heretics. Notwithstanding all this, he saith that nothing is more right then to call them so, that what I say here is contrary to the public and best intelligence we have from those remote Countries, that I have a mind to cling in very Brotherly and very lovingly, with the Nestorians and Eutychians, though I say I will not, that I stroke those errors which I accurse, with a gentle hand, styling them but unusual expressions. First for so much as concerneth myself, I have renounced those errors, I have accursed them: if yet he will not credit me, there is nothing left for me to do, but to appeal to God the searcher of all hearts, that what I say is true, and his accusations are groundless Calumnies. But as to the merit of the cause he addeth, that these unusual expressions were only these, that Christ had two distinct persons, and no distinct natures. Thus he saith, but what Authors, what Authority doth he produce, that any of these Churches are guilty of any such expressions? None at all, because for all his good intelligence, he hath none to produce, nor ever will be able to produce any; and so his good intelligence must end in smoke and stink, as his most faithful protestation did before. I will conclude this point to his shame, with the Doctrine of the English Church Art. 2. That the two Nature's Divine and Humane are perfectly and inseparably conjoined in the Unity of the person of Christ. Doth this agree with his counterfeit expressions, Christ hath two distinct persons no distnct natures?  
When I used this expression [the best is we are either wheat or chaff of the Lords Floor, but their tongues must not winnow us], these words [the best is], had no such immediate Relation unto the words immediately following [we are either wheat or Chaff], but to the last▪ words [their tongues must not winnow us], making this the complete sense, we are either wheat or chaff, but the best is whether we be wheat or chaff, their tongues must not winnow us. What poor boyish pickquering is this?  
In my Reply to the Bishop of Chalcedon, occasionally I showed the Agreement of the Greek Churches with the Church of England, in the greatest Questions agitated between us and the Church of Rome, out of cyril late Patriarch of Constantinople; which he taketh no notice of, but in requital urgeth a passage out of Mr. Rosse, in his book called a View of all Religions. It is an unequal match, between Mr. Rosse a private Stranger, and the Patriarch of Constantinople, in a cause concerning his own Church. I meddle not with Mr. Rosse, but leave him to abound in his own sense, I know not whether he be truly cited or not: but with Mr. Serjeant. I shall be bold to tell him that if he speaketh seriously and bona fide, he is mistaken wholly, Neither do the greeks place much of their Devotion in the worship of the Virgin Mary and painted Images. 
Cyrill. ad Int. 4.  Hear Cyrill the Patriarch, we give leave to him that will, to have the Images of Christ and of the Saints, but we disallow the Adoration and worship of them, as prohibited by the Holy Ghost in Holy Scripture. And another, They give great honour to the Virgin Mary the Mother of Christ, but they neither adore her, nor implore her aid. And for the Intercession, prayers, help and Merits of the Saints, (taking the word [Merit] in the sense of the Primitive Church, that is not for Desert but for Acquisition), I know no Difference about them among those men who understand themselves: but only about the last words, which they invocate in their Temples rather than Churches. A Comprecation both the Grecians and we do allow, an ultimate invocation both the Grecians and we detest: so do the Church of Rome in their Doctrine, but they vary from it in their practice. It followeth, They place Iustification not in Faith but in works, Most Falsely▪ Hear Hieremy the Patriarch; 
Prim. Resp. cap. 6. C. 13.  We must do good works but not confide in them: And cyril his Successor, We believe that man is justified by Faith not Works.  
Before we can determine for whom those Eastern Southern and Northern Christians are, in the Question concerning the Sacrifice of the Mass: it is necessary to know what the right state of this Controversy is. I have challenged them to go one step further into it then I do, and they dare not, or rather they cannot without Blasphemy.  
The next instance concerning Purgatory, is so gross and notorions a mistake, that it were a great shame to confute it; They believe that the souls of the Dead are bettered by the prayers of the living. Which way are they bettered? That the souls of damned are released or eased thereby, the Modern Greeks deny, and so do we; That there are any souls in Purgatory to be helped, they deny, and so do we; That they may be helped to the Consummation of their Blessedness, and to a speedier Union with their Bodies by the resurrection thereof, they do not deny, no more do we: We pray daily, Thy Kingdom come: and Come Lord jesus come quickly: and that we with this our Brother and all other departed in the Faith, may have our perfect Consummation and bless both in body and Soul. They hate Ecclesiastical Tyranny and lying supposititious Traditions, so do we; but if they be for the Authority of the Church, and for genuine Apostolical Traditions, God's blessing on their hearts, so are we. Lastly the Grecians know no feast of Corpus Christi, nor carry the Sacrament up and down, nor elevate it to be adored. They adore Christ in the use of the Sacrament, so do we: They do not adore the Sacrament, no more do we.  
Yet from hence he inferreth, that there is not a point of Faith wherein they descent from the Church of Rome, except that one of the Pope's Supremacy. It is well they will acknowledge that. Yet, the Grecians agree with us and differ from them, in his two Rules or Bonds of Unity. In the Rule of discipline; the Grecians and we have the same Government of Bishops under Patriarches and Primates, Secondly in the Rule of Faith; the Grecians and we have both the same Canonical books of Scripture, both reject their Apocryphal Additions from the Genuine Canon. They and we have both the same Apostolical Creed, both reject the new Additions of Pius the fourth. In sum, they and we do both deny their Transubstantiation, their Purgatory, their justification by works in sensu forensi, their doctrine of Merits and Supererogation, their Septenary number of the Sacraments, their Image worship, their Pardons, their private Masses, their half-Communion. And to be brief, the Grecians do renounce and reject all those Branches of Papal power, which we have cast out of the Church of England. As the Pope's Sovereignty over the Catholic Church by divine Right, as Nilus saith; It is intolerable that the Roman Bishop will not be subject to the Canons of the Fathers, since he had his Dignity from the Fathers. Secondly his Legislative power, as Peter Stewart Vice-chanceller of Ingolstad witnesseth, that the Grecians object it as an error to the Latins, that they make the Pope's Commandments to be their Canons and Laws. Thirdly his judiciary power, equalling the Patriarch of Constantinople to the Patriarch of Rome, or rather preferring him. Lastly his dispensative power, accusing his Pardons and Dispensations as things that open a ga●e to all Kind of Villainy. I am glad that Nilus is in his good grace, to be styled by him one of the gravest Bishops and Authors of that party, for one moderate expression wherein he saith no more than we say▪ His Friend Possivine calls him a Virulent Adversary: and if ever Mr. Serjeant read him throughly, it is ten to one he will change his note. Thus much for my Communion with the Eastern Churches, it is the same with the Southern and Northern Churches; all which do plead better Tradition than himself.  
Whereas he saith that my Assertion, that the Creed contained all points necessary to be believed, is grounded only upon my falsifying of the Council of Ephesus; he bewrayeth his ignorance both in the Fathers and in his own Authors. The Scripture is none of those particular Articles which are necessary to Salvation to be believed: but it is the Evidence whereby those Articles are revealed▪ and wherein they are comprehended; The Creed was composed before the Canon of Scripture was perfected. They have not only changed from their Ancestors in Opinions: but they have changed their own Opinions, into necessary Articles of Faith, which is worse.  
I denied that the Council of Trent was a General Council, as wanting the requisite Conditions of a General Council, which they themselves judge to be necessary. The summons ought to have been general, but it was not. The great Patriarches ought to have been present, but they were not; neither the Patriarches of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem, nor any of them; nor yet the Patriarches of Armenia, Abissina, Moscow, Mussall &c., nor any of them. He answereth, they had no right to be summoned thither, unless to be called to the Bar as Delinquents, nor to sit there, nor are to be accounted Christians. It had need to be a large Bar indeed to hold them all. Was it ever heard before, that a fifth part of a Council did call four parts to the Bar? Their Ancestors had right to be summoned to a General Council, and to sit and vote there as well as the best; how have their posterity lost this right? Had they been heard and condemned in a General Council? No. But he urgeth what need hearing, when themselves in the Face of the whole world publicly confessed and maintain their imputed fault. How? what needed hearing? O Just judge! He that giveth a right Sentence, yet if he give it without hearing, is an unrighteous judge. They confessed their imputed Fault: but did they confess it to be a Fault? No I warrant you, he can not say it for shame. Or how should they confess it in the Face of the whole Christian world? They are the Christian world themselves, and your Roman world is but a Microcosm in comparison of them.  
The case is so evident and notorious, that no man can doubt of it. The Continent hath not left St. Peter's Boat, but St. Peter's Boat hath left the Continent. The Innovation or swerving from Apostolical Tradition, was not in the Christian world, but in the Court of Rome, who would have advanced their Aristocratical power to a Sovereign Monarchical power: but the Christian world would not give way to it; if this were an error in them, all their Ancestors were guilty of it as well as they. But the Court of Rome being conscious to themselves that they were the Innovators, to free themselves from fear of being censured by the Christian World, adventured to give the first blow, by censuring the whole Christian world itself. This was a Bolder Act then that of Pope Victor which Irenaeus misliked so much.  
He will never leave his Socratical manner of disputing by Questions; what certain Rule have we to know, what Sects are of she Church? Although I needed not, yet I have answered this demand formerly. All those are of the Church who wear the Badge and Cognisance of Christians, that is, the Apostles Creed as it is explicated by the four first General Counsels, as all those Churches do: and have not been cast out of the Church by the Sentence of a General Council, as none of these Churches have; no nor yet by the Sentence of the Roman Church itself, if we may trust the Bishop of Chalcedons Survey cap. 8. Neither doth the Roman Church excommunicate all the Christians of Africa Asia Greece and Russia, but only such as do vincibly or sinfully err. He addeth, that there are innumerable who are not formal Heretics, but only Hereticis Credentes. These continue good Christians still, and are Churches still, and ought not to be excluded from General Counsels, though supposed to be materially in an error; much less being innocent and in no Heresy or Schism either formal or Material.  
I pleaded that though it were true, that all the other Patriarches were such Material Heretics, yet of all others they ought especially to have been summoned. The reason is evident, because they that are sick have more need of the Physician, than they that are in health. Hence he inferreth, that it is more necessary that Heretics be called to a General Council, than Orthodox Fathers. Not so, both are necessary, the one to Cure, the other to be cured: but the especial Consideration or end of a Council, is for those that err, that they may be reduced.  
I said [the Pope hath not that Authority over a General Council, that the King hath over a Parliament]. He answereth, that he is so plain a man, that he understandeth not what the Authority of King or Parliament signifies. I will help him. The King may dissolve a Parliament when he pleaseth: so may not the Pope a General Council against their wills. If the King die by whose writ it was called, the Parliament is dissolved: so is not a General Council by death of the Pope. The King hath a Negative voice in Parliament: so hath not the Pope in a General Council.  
I urged, that the Proto●patriarchs are not known or condemned Rebels. He answereth first, this is only said again not proved. He is always stumbling upon the same Block: It doth not belong to me to prove they were not condemned; but to himself who accuseth them, to show when and where they where condemned. Secondly he answereth, that their Errors have been condemned by Counsels, and for the most part some of their own party being present. But the condemning of their errors, is no sufficient warrant for the excluding of their persons out of General Counsels. Neither were these Counsels General Counsels, or such as had any jurisdiction over the Protopatriarches. Moreover, they condemn Papal Errors as well as he condemneth their Errors, whether is more Credit to begiven to the Pope, in his own cause charging all the Patriarches in the world, or to all the other Patriarches in the world, unanimously condemning his Usurpations in the name of the Catholic Church?  
He demands, whether there might not be a Parliament of England, without having the fifth part of the Members found in that Council, and yet be a lawful Parliament? I think there might, if the absence of all the rest proceeded from their own neglect: but not if it proceeded from want of Summons, as the absence of the Protopatriarches did.  
He bids me rub up my memory, he believes I will find an English Law, that sixty Members is a sufficient number to make a lawful Parliament. I have done his Commands, and I know no such law, nor he neither: and then he must be a very confident man to cite such a Law. Perhaps he hath heard of some Ordinance of the House of Commons, how many members at the least must be present at doing of some inferior Acts: but neither is this Ordinance an English Law, ●or that House an English Parliament.  
He saith, I excepted against the superproportioned multitude of Members out of one Province, which never lawful Parliament had. Superproportioned indeed, where there were double the Number of Italian Bishops to all the other Bishops of the Christian world, (this is no equal representative): and these assembled thither not to dispute, as he fancieth vainly, but merely to overvote the Tramontanes. A few Bishops had sufficed to relate the Belief or Tradition of Italy, as well as the rest of the world: but that had not sufficed to do the Pope's work, that was, to overswey the rest of the Christian world, with his Superproportioned multitude of Italian Bishops. He saith, perhaps I will pretend, that had the Catholic Bishops out of their Provinces been there, they would have voted against their Fellow Catholics, in behalf of Luther and Calvin, which were a wise answer. I heed not much what he calleth wise or foolish: I do not only pretend, but I see clearly, that If the Bishops of other Countries had been proportioned to those of Italy, they had carried the Debate about Residence and the Divine right of Episcopacy; and that had done the business of the Western Church, and undone the Court of Rome.  
But he quite omitteth the most material part of my Discourse, concerning his resemblance between a Parliament and a General Council; That [the absence of whole Provinces and the much greater part of the Provinces, either of England or of Christendom, for want of due Summons, doth disable such a Parliament or such a Council, from being a General Representative of the whole.] He might even as well say, that an Assembly of the Peers and Burgesses of Wales upon Summons, without any appearance or summons of all the rest of the Kingdom of England, was a lawful Parliament of all England: as say the Council of Trent was a General Representative of the Christian world, which was never summoned.  
I proved, that the Council of Trent was no General Council, because it was not Generally received, no not among the Occidental Churches: particularly, by the Church of France in point of Discipline. He answereth that notwithstanding, They acknowledge it to be a lawful General Council, and receive it in all Determinations belonging to Faith. Adding, that the Disciplinarian Laws of a General Council, do bind particular Countries only in due Circumstances, and according to their Conveniences. But the Contrary is most apparent, that Counsels truly General, being the Supreme Tribunals of the Catholic Church, do bind particular Churches as well in point of Discipline as of Faith. The General Counsels of Constantinople and Chalcedon, did set the See of Constantinople before Alexandria and Antioch, And equal it to Rome, notwithstanding the Pope's Opposition. What Opinion the King and Church of France had of the Council of Trent in those Days, appeareth by the solemn Protestation of the French Ambassador, made in the Council in the name of his Master and the French Church, that seeing all things were done at Rome rather than at Trent, 
Gold. to. 3. pa. 571  and the decrees there published, were rather the decres of Pius the fourth then of the Council of Trent, We denounce (said he) and protest before you all, that whatsoever things are decreed and published in this Assembly by the mere will and pleasure of Pope Pius, neither the most Christian King will ever approve, nor the French Church ever acknowledge to be the decrees of a General Council.  
That the Council of Trent was not a free Council I proved, first by the Testimony of Sleidan; secondly by the bitter complaint of the Fathers in the Council of Trent, that it was guided by the Spirit sent from Rome in a Male; thirdly by the Pope's creating ●ot only new Bishops, but new Bishoprics in the time of the Council, to make his party able to overvote their Opposers. To the first he saith, that Sleidan was a notorious lying Authonr of our own side. Who fitter to relate the Grievances of the Protestants then a Protestant? which he did not say in a Corner but published to the world in print, when they might have refuted it if they could. To the second he answereth, that it was a jeering expression. Yes, it was biting as well as jeering Ridiculum acri Fortius & melius magnas plerumque secat res. The French Ambassador (whom he thought to pass by in silence) did not jeer: yet he said the same thing in sad earnest. To my third Argument he saith ●t is nothing to the purpose. How nothing to the purpose, for the Pope when his affairs were going retrograde, and his party like to be overvoted; to create new Bishoprics, to ordain new Bishops, and pack them away presently to the Council to assist his party, and by that means to gain a plurality of Voices? Is this nothing to the purpose in his Opinion? It may be he thinks, that Italy had not Bishops enough there, (yet they had two thirds of the Council before): or that these new Bishops, did understand the Tradition and Belief of Italy better than all the rest.  
If it be his mind to wave the Pope's patriarchal power, I am contented: otherwise his proof will not weigh much, unless we admit strangers (who know little or nothing of our Privileges, more than we know the Cyprian Privilege, before the Council of Ephesus) to be competent judges, and will interpret a Western Patriarch to be the only Patriarch of all the west. The Archbishop of York is Primate of England, and yet all England is not subject to his jurisdiction. Forfeiture and Quitting are two distinct Charges: an Office is Forfeited by abuse, and quitted by assuming a new Office inconsistent with the former; as I have showed the Papacy and a Patriarchate, that is, a Sovereign and Subordinate power to be. But a Patriarchate and a Bishopric, being both subordinate to a General Council, are not inconsistent: and much less the Office of a King and Master of a Family, the one being Political the other Economical. But an Universal Monarchy by divine right, and the Presidency of a Particular Province by Humane right, are inconsistent; I gave him my reasons for it, and he taketh no notice of them.  
He excepteth against my styling patriarchal Authority, a patriarchal Aristocratical dignity, which he calleth my thrice repeated non sense. It is well he did not make it a Contradiction. His reason is, because a Patriarchate is a Government by one, an Aristocracy by many. The answer is Obvious and easy; a Patriarch is a Monarch in the Government of his own Patriarchate, yet subordinate to a General Council: but in a General Council or in the Government of the Catholic Church, he is but one of the Optimates, or a Fellow governor with other Bishops. He saith, it was never pretended by Catholics, that the Pope was the King of the Church. I wonder that he is no bet●er acquainted with the Sorbone disputes, whether the Regiment of the Church, be an absolute Monarchy tempered with an Aristocracy.  
We have a Meritorious Sacrifice, that is the Sacrifice of the Cross; We have a Commemorative and Applicative Sacrifice, or a Commemoration and Application of that Sacrifice in the Holy Eucharist. A Suppletory Sacrifice, to supply any want or defects in that Sacrifice, he dare not own, and unless he do own it, he saith no more than we say.  
What I spoke of our Registers, I intended principally of that Register of the right Ordination of Protestant Bishops, that he may see when he will for his love, and have the Copy of any Act in it for his money: but he had rather wrangle about it then take such pains; if he will have a little Patience I will ease him of that Labour and Expenses. It is no insuperable difficulty nor any difficulty at all to us, to find out that Catholic Church which we have in our Creed: but to find out his Roman Catholic Church; is both a Contradiction in adjecto, and an Apple of Contention, serving to commit him and his Friends together among themselves, which he knoweth and therefore declineth it.  
I called not the Ancient Bishop of Italy either Episcopelles, or the Pope's hungry Parasitical Pensioners: but the Flatterer's of the Roman Court, and Principally those petty Bishops, which were created during the Council of Trent to serve the Pope's turn. If he think that Court free from such Moths, he is much mistaken. Neither are these expressions mine originally, I learned them from the ancient Bishops of Italy themselves, who gave them those very names of Episcopelles etc. Neither did I tax any man in particular.  
He desires me to examine my Conscience, whether I do not get my living by preaching that Doctrine which I put in my Books, which how many notorious Falsities, Contradictions, and Tergiversations they have in them, may be judged by this present work. Yes, if he and his merry Stationer may be my judges. Now his work is ended and answered, I will make him a fair offer; If he be able to make but one of all his Contradictions, and Falsifications, and absurdities good, I will be reputed guilty of all the rest: if he be not, I desire him both to examine his own Conscience and Discretion, what reward he deserveth both at the hands of God and man, for so many notorious Calumnies. As for his Faults, I shall rather leave them to the judgement of the Reader, then trouble myself with the Recapitulation of them.  
In the close of my Discourse I answered an exception of his, that I cited Gerson against myself. The words of Gerson (or rather of the Eastern Church when they separated from the Roman) are these, Potentiam tuam recognoscimus, Avar●●iam tuam implere non possumus, Vivite per vos; We know thy power, we cannot satisfy thy Covetousness, Live by yourselves. They knew that he had a patriarchal power, and that he was the first or chief of the Patriarches: but this power we deny not, that power which we deny, is a Supremacy of single power, and that by Christ's own Ordination. The Question is, whether the Grecians did acknowledge such a power due to the Pope in these words. That they did not, I prove, first by the practice of most of all the Eastern Churches, who excommunicate the Pope yearly as a Schismatic for challenging this power. Secondly, I prove it by the Testimony of all their writers, especially the modern Greeks, as Hieremy and Cyrill, the two succeeding Patriarches of Constantinople, and Nilus an Archbishop &c., who all deny this power to the Pope in the name of the Greek Church. Thirdly, I prove it by his own confession in this very Chapter, There is no one point produced by him, which our Church looks upon as a point of Faith, in which they descent from us and consent with the Protestants, except that one of denying the Pope's Supremacy. How? do they grant the Pope's Supremacy and deny the Pope's Supremacy, and yet continue the same without Variation (as they have done)? I do not say this is a Contradiction, but let the Reader judge.  
His reasons are mere Prevarications, not reasons. First here is no Opposition between power and covetousness, unless he mean all Affirmatives and Negatives (whatsoever be the Subjects or Predicates,) are Opposites; and if they were, it signifieth nothing. Secondly, he demands what power had the Pope over them except Spiritual jurisdiction? I answer, he showed them sufficiently at the Division of the Greek Empire: and then they stood in need of his assistence against the Turk.  
His third fourth and fifth Arguments may be reduced to one, and when they are twisted they will not have the weight of one single hair. The Difference was about undue Subsidies and Taxes, but the Demanding Subsidies seems incredible, had there not been some preacknowledged power to ground such demands upon. Yes, there was his Protopatriarchall power, and that tentered and stretched out to the uttermost extent: and when he would have extended it yet higher, the Grecians cast out his Usurpations. I see he doth but grope in the dark, I will help him to some light. Peter Steward upon Caleca tells him what these undue Subsidies and Exactions were, when the Pope's Legates brought yearly the Chrism from the Apostolic See to Constantinople, they would not depart from thence unless they had eighty pound weight of Gold, besides other Gifts bestowed upon them.  
Lastly he addeth, Gerson concludes that upon this Consideration, they might proceed to the Reformation of the French Churches, notwithstanding the Contradiction which perhaps some of the Court of Rome would make; which evidenceth that the acknowledgement of the Pope's just power was retained, and encroachments on their Liberties only denied. Concedo omnia. His Protopatriarchall power was acknowledged, his Sovereignty of jurisdiction was denied as an encroachment: and this is the same Method which we observed in England.  
And so Mr. Serjeant concludes his Rejoinder, that the Bishop began like a Bowler and ends like one of those Artificers, who going to mend one hole, use to make other three. Just Mr. Sergeant, just, As your mind thinketh, so the Bell clinketh. If there be any of those Artificers here, it is yourself, whose constant Custom is to make holes where there are none, and out of an eager desire of Contradicting others, to plunge yourself irrecoverably into real Contradiction. With Scurrility you began this Rejoinder and with Scurrility you end it.  
That which followeth is a Dish of thrice sodden Coleworts, or a vain recapitulation of his own Imaginary Achievements, which the Reader hath been troubled withal too often already.  
I have done with Mr. Sergeants Rejoinder, and have but one short request to the Reader; That if he meet with any thing in this Treatise, which is not becoming that Gravity or Civility which one Scholar oweth to another, especially in Theological Inquisitions, Sciat responsum non dictum esse. He will be pleased to consider, that it is hardly possible to answer so much Petulance, without some Tartness. For the future, if Mr. Serjeant have any thing to say upon this subject, let him say it Logically and he will not have cause to complain that he is neglected: but if he pursue this way of quibbling and wording, (which he complaineth of in others without a cause, and practiseth himself) I shall make bold to cull out and answer whatsoever I judge material, and leave the rest to a younger pen, which will attend his Motions.  
FINIS.